Skip to main content

Full text of "Cyclopedia of law and procedure"

See other formats


Cornell  University 
Library 


m 


The  original  of  this  book  is  in 
the  Cornell  University  Library. 

There  are  no  known  copyright  restrictions  in 
the  United  States-on  the  use  of  the  text. 


http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924061134601 


CYCLOPEDIA 


OF 


LAW  AND  PROCEDURE 


WILLIAM     MACK,     LL.D 

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF 


VOLUME  XXXVIII 


NEW  YORK 
THE  AMERICAN  LAW  BOOK  COMPANY 

l.ONUON:  BUTTRRWOUTH  &  CO.,   12  Bbll  Yard 
I9II 


/3  //x 


Copyright,  1911 
By  Thk  American  Law  Book  Company 


J.  Ji.    I.YON   COMPANY 

PKINTEKS      AND      IllNDERl 

ALBANY,   w.    /. 


To 

CHARLES  WALTER  DUMONT 

more  than  to  any  other  man  is  due  the  existence  of  the  Cyclopedia 
of  Law  and  Procedure.  His  was  the  idea ;  his  was  the  plan  ;  and 
his  has  been  the  business  ability  and  energetic  management,  as 
organizer  and  president  of  The  American  Law  Book  Company,  which 
have  made  possible  the  successful  publication  of  these  volumes, 
which  are  therefore  respectfully  dedicated  to  him. 

William  Mack. 


TABLE  OF  TITLES,  EDITORS,  AND  CONTRIBUTORS 


Tenancy  in  Common,  i---  ......     David  Ash 

Tender,  127 Alva  R.  Hunt 

Territories,  191         .       -  ...        Charles  Sumner  Lobingier 

Theaters  and  Shows,  252 Alexander  Karst 

Theft  Insurance,  274 Esten  Calhoun  Taylor 

Threats,  289 Alexander  Karst 

Time,  306     ...-...._...    Stanley  A.  Hackett 

Title  Insurance,  344 Alexander  Karst 

Toll  Roads,  361 Stanley  A.  Hackett 

Torts,  408       ..--.- H.  Gerald  Chapin 

Towage,  553-...-.....    Edward  C.  El;lsbree 

Towns,  593..-..-....         Henry  H.  Ingersqll 

Trade-Marks,  Trade-Names,  and  Unfair  Competition,  674  .  William  B.  Hale 
Trading  Stamps,  919-       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       Edwin  DuBose  Smith 

Treason,  951-.--..-...     Stanley  A.  Hackett 

William  R.  Day 


Treaties,  961 

'  Charles  Henry  Butler 

(  Joseph  Henry  Beale 
Trespass,  985     .......       .-J 

(  Richard  Y.  Fitz-Gerald 

Trespass  to  Try  Title,  1191  ...  Alexander  Stronach 

Trial,  1238        .........         Roderick  E.  Rombauer 

Trover  and  Conversion,  1997   -       -        -       -         William  Winchester  Keysor 

Words,  Phrases,  and  Maxims       ....  Esten  Calhoun  Taylor 


Cite  this  Volume 

38  Cyc. 


Followed  by  Page. 


TRNANCY  IN  COMMON 

By  David  Ash 
Of  the  Baltimore  Bar 
I.  DEFINITIONS,  3 

A.  Tenancy  in  Common,  3 

B.  Tenant  in  Common,  4 

C.  Coparcenary  or  Parcenary,  5 

II.  Creation,  existence,  and  Termination,  s 

A.  Creation  and  Existence,  5 

B.  Severance  and  Termination,  13 

III.  MUTUAL     RIGHTS,    DUTIES,    AND     LIABILITIES     OF     COTENANTS    AND 
INCIDENTS  OF   RELATION,  14 

A.  Fiduciary  Relation  of  Cotcnants  Inter  Se,  14 

B.  Use  and  Enjoyment  of  Premises,  16 

1.  Right  of  Entry,  16 

2.  Equal  Right  to  Use  and  Enjoyment,  17 

C.  Possession  and  Seizin,  20 

1.  Right  to  Possession,  20 

2.  Possession  of  One  as  Possession  of  All,  21 

3.  Ouster  and  Adverse  Possession,  23 

a.  Rule  Stated,  23 

b.  What  Constitutes  Ouster  or  Adverse  Possession,  25 

(i)  In  General,  25 

(ii)   Unauthorized    Conveyance    of  More    Than    Cotenant's ' 
Share  as  Ouster,  34 
(ill)  Ouster  as  Evidenced  by  Pleadings,  36 
(iv)  Notice  of  Adverse  Holding,  37 

c.  Tacking  Possession,  38 

d.  Waiver  or  Abandonment  by  Disseizor;  Survivorship,  38 

e.  Ouster  and  Adverse  Possession  as  Question  of  Law  or  Fact,  39 

f.  Action  to  Determine  Validity  of  Adverse  Claim,  40 

D.  Purchase  or  Discharge  of  Outstanding  Interest,  Title,  or  Claim,  40 

1.  Outstanding  Interests,  Title,  or  Claims  in  General,  40 

a.  Right  to  Purchase  or  Discharge  and  Effect  Thereof,  40 

b.  Extent  and  Qualification  of  Rule,  43 

c.  Contribution ;  Lien,  46 

2.  Extinguishment  of  Tax  Claim  and  Purchase  of  Tax  Title,  48 

a.  Right  to  Extinguish  or  Purchase,  and  Effect  Thereof,  48 

b.  Contribution;  Lien,  51 

3.  Purchasing  Cotenant's  Interest,  53 

E.  Repairs,  Improvements,  and  Expenses  For  Care  and  Management  of 

Property,  53 

1.  Duty  and  Right  to  Repair,  53 

2.  Contribution  For  Expenses;  Services,  53 

a.  Rule  Stated,  53 

b.  Basis  and  Anwunt  of  Contribution,  58 

c.  Right  to  Contribution  as  Dependent   Upon  Sharing  Rents  and 

Profits,  and  Conversely,  59 

d.  Right  as  Affected  by  Statute,  60 

e.  Re7?iedies,  60 

f.  Lien,  61 

F.  Rent,  Income,  and  Profits,  62 


2     [38  Cye.]  TENANCY  IN  COMMON 

1.  Collection  and  Application  of  Rents,  62 

2.  Liability  of  Cotenants  For  Rents  and  Profits,  63 

a.  Rule  Stated,  63 

b.  Interest;  Costs,  71 

c.  Lien,  72 

G.  Agreements  and  Conveyances  Between  Cotenants,  72 
H.  Estoppel  Between  Coteriants  as  to  Common  Title,  73 
I.  Respective  Interests  of  Cotenants,  74 
J.  Remedies,  Actions,  and  Proceedings,  75 

1.  Account,  75 

a.  Nature  and  Grounds  of  Remedy  iii  General,  75 

b.  Demand  as  Condition  Precedent,  77 

c.  Crediting  Expenditures  For  Common  Benefit,  78 

d.  Equitable  Accounting,  80 

2.  Assumpsit,  81 

a.  In  General,  81 

b.  For  Rents  and  Profits,  83 

3.  Tort  Actions,  84 

a.  In  General;   Trover,  84 

b.  For  Crops  and  Timber,  88 

c.  Waste,  89 

d.  Ejectment,  91 

(i)  In  General,  91 

(ii)    Title  to  Support  Action;  Capacity  to  Sue,Q3 
(ill)   Demand,  94 

iv)   Extent  of  Recovery  ;  Judgment,  94 

e.  Trespass,  94 

(i)  In  General,  94 
(ii)    To  Try  Title,  95 

4.  Equitable  Jurisdiction,  96 

a.  /w  General,  96 

b.  Injunction,  97 

(i)  7n  General,  97 
(ii)   To  Restrain  Waste,  98 

5.  Construction  of  Statutes  Relating  to  Actions  Involving  Cotenancy,  99 

6.  Limitations,  100 

IV.  RIGHTS  AND  LIABILITIES  OF  COTENANTS  AS  TO  THIRD  PERSONS,  101 

A.  Authority  of  Cotenants  to  Bind  Each  Other,  101 

1.  Rule  Stated,  101 

2.  Lease ;  Rescission  or  Surrender,  104 

3.  Release  or  Settlement,  105 

4.  Notice  to  One  Cotenant  as  Notice  to  All,  106 

5.  Estoppel  and  Ratification,  106 

6.  Joint  Contracts ;  Leases,  108 

B.  Sale  or  Conveyance,  108 

1.  By  One  Cotenant  of  More  Than  His  Share,  108 

a.  Rule  Stated,  108 

b.  Ratification;  Estoppel,  111 

c.  Remedies  of  Non-Consenting  Cotenants,  111 

2.  Of  Cotenant' s  Undivided  Interest,  112 

3.  Conveyance  by  Metes  and  Bounds,  114 

C.  Actions  and  Proceedings,  116 

1.  In  General;  Amount  of  Recovery,  116 

2.  Parties,  118 

a.  Joinder  of  Plaintiffs,  118 

(i)   Actions  in  Which  Cotenants  Need  Not  Join,  118 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON  [38  Cyc]     3 

(ii)   Actions  in  Which  Joinder  Is  Necessary,  120 
(hi)  Actions  in  Which  Joinder  Is  Permissive,  121 
(iv)  Actions  Which  Cotenants  Cannot  Maintain  Jointly,  121 
b.  Defendant,  122 
3.  Limitations,  123 

CROSS-REFERENCES 

For  Matters  Relating  to : 

Attachment  of  Property  Owned  in  Common,  see  Attachment,  4  Cyc.  566,  598. 
Conveyance  of  Cotenant's  Interest  as  Champerty,  see  Champerty  and  Main- 
tenance, 6  Cyc.  872. 
Distraint  For  Rent  by  Tenant  in  Common,  see  Landlord  and  Tenant, 

24  Cyc.  1291. 
Execution  Against  Interest  of  Cotenant,  see  Executions,  17  Cyc.  943,  1094. 
Fire  Insurance  of  Interest  of  Cotenant,  see  Fire  Insurance,  19  Cyc.  883. 
Forcible   Entry   and    Detainer    by   Cotenant,    see   Forcible    Entry   and 

Detainer,  19  Cyc.  1141. 
Homestead  Rights  in  Property  Held  in  Common,  see  Homesteads,  21  Cyc. 

504. 
Infant  Cotenant,  see  Infants,  22  Cyc.  528. 
Joinder  by  Tenants  in  Common  in  Writ  of  Entry,  see  Entry,  Writ  of,  15  Cyc. 

1074. 
Joint  Tenancy,  see  Joint  Tenancy,  23  Cyc.  482. 

Judgment  Against  One  Tenant  in  Common  as  Binding  Cotenant,  see  Judg- 
ments, 23  Cyc.  1256. 
Larceny  by  Tenant  in  Common,  see  Larceny,  25  Cyc.  23. 
Mechanic's  Lien  on  Property  in  Common,  see  Mechanics'  Liens,  27  Cyc.  54. 
Municipal  Corporation  as  Tenant  in  Common,  see  Municipal  Corporations, 

28  Cyc.  608. 
Oral  Partition  by  Cotenants  as  Affected  by  Statute  of  Frauds,  see  Frauds, 

Statute  of,  20  Cyc.  224. 
Power  of  Corporation  to  Take  Land  as  Tenant  in  Common,  see  Corporations, 

10  Cyc.  1132. 
Right  of  Tenant  in  Common  to  Redeem  From  Mortgage,  see  Mortgages, 

27  Cyc.  1808,  1827. 
Shareholders  of  Corporation  as  Tenants  in  Common  of  Corporate  Property, 

see  Corporations,  10  Cyc.  373,  1328.  • 

Survival  of  Action  Upon  Death  of  Tenant  in  Common,  see  Abatement  and 

Revival,  1  Cyc.  72. 
Tenancy  in  Common  in  Crops,  see  Landlord  and  Tenant,  24  Cyc.  1471. 
Tenancy  in  Common  in  Mining  Property,  see  Mines  and  Minerals,  27  Cyc. 

768. 
Widow  as  Tenant  in  Common  With  Heirs  Before  Assignment   of  Dower, 

see  Dower,  14  Cyc.  961. 

I.  Definitions. 
A.  Tenancy  in  Common.    Tenancy  in  common  is  the  holding  of  an  estate 
in  land  by  several  persons,  by  several  and  distinct  titles,  and  there  need  be  unity 
of  possession  only,^  but  perhaps  an  entire  disunion  of  interest,  of  title,  and  of 

1.  Manhattan  Real  Estate,  etc.,   Assoc,  v.  session   of  any  particular  part  of  tlie  land, 

Cudlipp,   80   N.   Y.   App.   Div.   532,   aSS,    80  each  being  entitled  to  occupy   the  whole  in 

N.  Y.  Suppl.  993.  common  with   the   others,   or   to   receive   his 

Another  definition  is:     "  Tenancy  in  com-  share  of  the  rents  and  profits."    Rapalje  &  L. 

mon,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  is  where  L.  Diet.  tit.  "Tenancy  in  Common"   [quoted 

two  or  more  persons  are  entitled  to  land  in  in  Carver  v.  Fennimore,  116  Ind.  236,  239,  19 

such  a  manner  that  they  have  an  undivided  N.  E.  103]. 

possession    but    several    freeholds,    i.    e. :    no  In  a  mere  expectancy  there  can  be  no  ten- 
one  of  them  is  entitled  to  the  exclusive  pos-  ancy  in  common,  for  in  order  to  create  the 

[I,  AJ 


4:     [38  Cyc] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


time.^  Possession  under  a  tenancy  in  common  is  per  my  and  not  per  tout,  and  as 
each  tenant  owns  ^n  undivided  fraction,  he  cannot  know  where  that  fraction  is 
until  a  division  has  been  made.^  While  definitions  of  tenancy  in  common  gen- 
erally relate  to  tenancy  in  common  in  real  property,  this  tenancy  can  exist  in 
personalty  as  well  as  in  realty.*  , 

B.  Tenant  in  Common.^  Tenants  in  common  are  such  as  hold  by  several 
and  distinct  titles,  but  by  unity  of  possession;  because  none  knoweth  his  own 
severalty,  and  therefore  they  all  occupy  promiscuously."  The  qualities  of  their 
estate  may  be  different,  the  shares  may  be  unequal;  the  modes  of  acquisition  of 
title  may  be  unlike;  and  the  only  unity  between  them  be  that  of  possession. 
Each  is  entitled  before  severance  to  an  interest  in  every  inch  of  the  soil;  ^  but  no 
one  of  them  is  entitled  to  the  exclusive  possession  of  any  particular  part  of  the 


object  of  a  tenancy  in  common  there  must 
be  an  actual  estate  in  possession.  Betts  f. 
Betts,  4  Abb.  N.  Cas.    (N.  Y.)   317,  353. 

The  difference  between  an  estate  in  com- 
mon and  a  tight  of  common  is  that  the  first 
is  a  corporeal  hereditament,  while  the  last 
appears  from  its  very  definition  to  be  an 
incorporeal  hereditament.  The  first  is  the 
land  itself;  the  other  a  profit  which  a  man 
hath  in  the  land  of  another.  Crawford  V. 
Neff,  3  Walk.   (Pa.)   57,  61. 

Tenancies  in  common  difier  from  sole  es- 
tates merely  in  unity  of  possession.  Craw- 
ford !■.  Nef5f,  3  Walk.   (Pa.)   57,  61. 

Unity  of  possession  is  an  essential  attri- 
bute of  tenancy  in  common.  Blessing  v. 
House,  3  Gill  &  J.  (Md.)  290,  307;  Laughlin 
V.  O'Reily,  92  Miss.  121,  125,  45  So.  193; 
Sutton  !,-.  Jenkins,  147  N.  C.  11,  16,  60  S.  E. 
643 ;  Lillianskyoldt  f.  Goss,  2  Utah  292,  297 ; 
Bulger  V.  Woods,  3  Pinn.  (Wis.)  460,  463. 
It  is  the  only  unity  recognized  between  ten- 
ants in  common.  Bush  v.  Gamble,  127  Pa. 
St.  43,  50,  17  Atl.  865. 

The  ownership  of  land  by  one  and  of  the 
house  thereon  by  the  other  does  not  create 
a  community  of  property,  under  the  civil 
code.    Javier  v.  Javier,  6  Philippine  493,  495. 

3.  Silloway  v.  Brown,  12  Allen  (Mass.)  30, 
36  [quoting  2  Blackstone  Comm.  191] ;  Tay- 
lor V.  Millard,  118  N.  Y.  244,  249,  23  N.  E. 
376,  6  L.  R.  A.  667. 

There  can  be  no  tenancy  in  a  mere  actual 
possession  by  one.  There  must  be  some  right 
or  title  to  the  possession,  and  not  the  mere 
actual  possession,  to  create  a  cotenancy. 
Lillianskyoldt  v.  Goss,  2  Utah  292,  297. 

3.  Taylor  v.  Millard,  118  N.  Y.  244,  250, 
23  K  E.  376,  6  L.  R.  A.  667. 

4.  Freeman  Coten.  §  88  [citing  Haven  v. 
Mehlgaften,  19  111.  91;  Livingston  v.  Lynch, 
4  Johns.  Oh.  (N.  Y.)  573].  And  see  infra, 
II,  A. 

5.  Distinction  between  joint  tenants  and 
tenants  in  common  see  Joint  Tenancy,  23i 
Cyc.  484.     • 

6.  2  Blackstone  Comm.  191  [.quoted  in 
Hunter  v.  State,  60  Ark.  312,  318,  30  S.  W. 
42;  Griswold  v.  Johnson,  5  Conn.  363,  365; 
Gittings  V.  Worthington,  67  Md.  130,  153, 
9  Atl.  228;  Silloway  v.  Brown,  12  Allen 
(Mass.)  30,  36;  Gould  v.  Eagle  Creek  Sub- 
District  No.  3,  8  Minn.  427,  431;  Tilton  v. 
Vail,   42  Hun    (N.  Y.)    638,   640;   Coster  v. 

[I.  A] 


Lorillard,  14  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  265,  337; 
O'Bryan  v.  Brown,  (Tenn.  Ch.  App.  1898) 
48  S.  W.  315,  316. 

Other  definitions  are:  "Those  that  come 
to  the  land  by  several  titles,  or  by  one  title 
and  several  rights."    5  Bacon  Abr.  240. 

"  Such  as  hold  by  several  and  distinct 
titles,  but  by  unity  of  possession."  1  Bouvier 
L.  Diet.  574  [quoted  in  Lagow  V.  Neilson, 
10  Ind.   183,   185]. 

"They  which  have  lands  or  tenements  in 
fee  simple,  fee  tail,  or  for  term  of  life,  &c. 
and  they  have  such  lands  or  tenements  by 
several  titles,  and  not  by  a  joint  title,  ar,d 
none  of  them  know  of  this  his  several,  but 
they  ought  by  the  law  to  occupy  these  lands 
or  tenements  in  common,  and  pro  indiiiso 
to  take  the  profits  in  common."  Coke  Litt. 
tit.  "Of  Tenants  in  Common,"  lib.  3,  c.  4, 
§  292  [quoted  in  Blessing  v.  House,  3  Gill 
&  J.    (Md.)    290,  307]. 

"  They  who  hold  by  several  titles,  or  by 
one  title  on  several  rights;  and  they  have 
several  freeholds,  and  their  right  is  several." 
Haysman  v.  Moon,  7  Mod.  430,  437,  87  Eng. 
Reprint  1337. 

Where  one.  rents  land  for  the  purpose  of 
having  a  single  crop  raised  on  it,  of  which 
the  lessor  is  to  have  a  part  for  the  use  of 
the  land  and  the  cultivator  a  part  for  hia 
labor,  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  it  was 
the  intention  that  the  relation  of  landlord 
and  tenant  should  exist  between  them,  the 
parties  are  to  be  considered  as  tenants  in 
common  in  the  crop.  Ponder  v.  Rhea,  32 
Ark.  435,  437. 

One  who  owns  mineral  rights  is  not  a  co- 
tenant  with  the  owner  of  the  surface. 
Hutchinson  v.  Kline,  199  Pa.  St.  564,  49  Atl. 
312.  But  the  proprietors  of  a  mining  ditch 
and  owners  of  mining  rights  are  tenants  in 
common  of  real  estate.  Bradley  v.  Harkness, 
26  Cal.  69.  And  after  such  a  ditch  has  been 
abandoned  and  its  flow  turned  into  another 
stream,  a  tenant  in  common,  in  the  absence 
of  contractual  or  statutory  limitations,  may 
recapture  and  use  his  proportion  of  the  water 
for  irrigating  or  other  purposes.  Meagher 
V.  Hardenbrook,   11  Mont.  385,  28  Pac.  451. 

7.  Sullivan  v.  Sullivan,  4  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
198,  200  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  66 
N.  Y.  37]. 

8.  Martin  v.  Bowie,  37  S.  C.  102,  15  S.  E. 
736. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON  [38  Cycj    5 

land,  each  being  entitled  to  occupy  the  whole  in  common  with  the  others  or  to 
receive  his  share  of  the  rents  and  profits.' 

C. ,  Coparcenary  or  Parcenary.  An  estate  in  coparcenary  is  an  estate 
acquired  by  two  or  more  persons,  usually  females,'"  by  descent  from  the  same 
ancestor;"  parceners  or  coparceners'^  being  defined  as  'several  persons  taking 
lands,  or  any  undivided  share  of  lands,  held  for  an  estate  of  inheritance  by 
descent,'  "  all  the  coparceners,  whatever  their  number,  constituting  but  one 
heir  and  having  but  one  estate  among  them,"  The  estate  arose  according  to 
the  course  of  common  law  in  the  case  of  descent  of  realty  to  female  heirs,  and 
according  to  particular  custom,  as  for  instance  the  gavelkind  custom  of  the  county 
of  Kent,  to  male  heirs,  being  in  the  latter  instance  an  exception  to  the  rule  of 
primogeniture.'^  The  estate  resembles  joint  tenancy  more  closely  than  tenancy 
in  common,  having  the  same  three  unities  of  title,  possession,  and  interest  as  the 
former,  and  in  addition  generally  the  unity  of  time.  But  there  is  no  survivor- 
ship, in  which  respect  the  estate  partakes  more  of  a  tenancy  in  common.'"  The 
estate  never  arose  by  purchase,  but  only  by  descent,  therein  differing  from  the 
other  cotenancies."  Whilst  joint  tenancies  refer  to  persons,  coparcenary  refers 
to  the  estate;  their  right  of  possession  is  in  common,  each  may  alien  her  share 
and  the  alienees  will  hold  as  tenants  in  common;  their  respective  shares  descend 
severally  to  their  respective  heirs."  They  had  the  same  remedy  in  equity  for 
an  account  as  tenants  in  common."  This  estate,  although  formerly  recognized 
in  a  few  of  the  older  states  of  the  Union,'"  is  now  generally  abolished,  in  many 
instances  by  statutes  which  change  such  estates  into  tenancies  in  common.^' 

II.  Creation,  existence,  and  Termination. 

A.  Creation  and  Existence.  At  common  law  a  tenancy  in  common  could 
be  created  only  expressly  or  by  necessary  implication,^'  and  the  inclination  of  the 
courts  was  to  construe  conveyances  as  creating  joint  tenancies  rather  than  tenancies 

9.  Carver  v.  Fennimore,  116  Ind.  236,  19  descent.  Baker  v.  Williams,  19  Cox  C.  C. 
N.  E.  103.  81,  79  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  343;  Berens  v.  Fel- 

10.  Chitty  Descents  76  [ciied  in  Freeman  lowes,  56  L.  T.  Eep.  N.  S.  391,  35  Wkly.  Rep. 
Coten.  §  79].  356. 

Males   are   in   some   instances   made   par-  16.  Hoffar  v.  Dement,  5   Gill    (Md.)    132, 

ceners  by  direct  descent  from  their  common  46  Am.  Dec.  628;   Coke  Litt.   1636,   164a;   2 

ancestor,  and  in  other  instances  they  become  Cruise  Dig.  391,  tit.  XIX,   §§   5,  6;   4  Kent 

parceners  by  being  heirs  to  a  female  parcener.  Comm.  366. 

Freeman  Coten.  §  77.    See  also  2  Blackstone  17.  2  Blackstone  Comm.  188. 

Comm.    187;    Coke    Litt.    §§    241,    242,    254,  18.  4    Kent    Comm.     (13th    ed.)     366;     1 

265.  Preston  Estates  138. 

11.  Burrill  L.  Diet.  tit.  "Estates  in  Co-  19.  O'Bannon  f.  Roberts,  2  Dana  (Ky.) 
parcenary."  54;  Drury  «.  Drury,  1  Ch.  Rep.  49,  21  Eng. 

12.  So  called  because  they  may  be  con-  Reprint  504;  1  Eq.  Cas.  Abr.  tit.  "Account," 
strained   to   make   partition.     2    Blackstone  A,  1  note. 

Comm.  189.  20.  See  O'Bannon  v.  Roberts,  2  Dana  (Ky.) 

13.  Preston  Abstracts  Title  68  [quoted  in  54;  Graham  v.  Graham,  6  T.  B.  Mon.  (Ky.) 
Freeman  Coten.  §  77].  561,    17   Am.   Dec.    166;    Gilpin   v.   Hollings- 

14.  Hoffar  v.  Dement,  5  Gill  (Md.)  132,  worth,  3  Md.  190,  56  Am.  Dec.  737;  Hoffar 
46  Am.  Dee.  628;  2  Blackstone  Comm.  187;  v.  Dement,  5  Gill  (Md.)  132,  46  Am.  Dee. 
Coke  Litt.   163.  628 ;  Stevenson  f.  Cofferin,  20  N.  H.  150. 

15.  Leigh  v.  Shepherd,  2  B.  &  B.  465,  6  21.  See  the  statutes  of  the  several  states. 
E.  C.  L.  230;  Harris  v.  Nichols,  Cro.  Eliz.  And  see  Stevenson  v.  Cofferin,  20  N.  H.  150 
19,  78  Eng.  Reprint  285;  Johnstone  f.  Baber,  (under  Rev.  St.  c.  129,  §  3)  ;  4  Kent  Comm. 
25  L.  J.  Ch.  899,  39  Eng.  L.  k  Eq.  189;  Buller  (13th  ed.)  367;  1  Washburn  Real  Prop.  414, 
c.  Exeter,  1  Ves.  340,  27  Eng.  Reprint  1069;  415. 

2  Blackstone  Comm.  187;   1  Chitty  Descents  In  Canada  the  estate  is  abolished  by  Consol. 

76  et  seq.,  182;   4  Kent  Comm.  366.  St.  e.  82,  §  38. 

Since  3  &  4  Wm.  IV,  c.  106,  where  persons  22.  Jackson  v.  Livingston,  7  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

take  under   a  will   insufficient  to  annex   the  136;  Pruden  v.  Paxton,  79  N.  C.  446,  2,8  Am 

incident    of    coparcenary    to    the    devise    so  Eep.  333;  Fisher  V.  Wigg,  1  P.  Wms.  14,  24 

taken,   they  take  as   joint  tenants  and   not  Eng.  Reprint  275.     See  also  2  Reeves  Real 

as  coparceners,  taking  by  devise  and  not  by  Prop.  §  685. 

[II,  A] 


6     [38  CycJ 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


in  common,  but  the  modern  tendency  is  to  import  an  intention  in  favor  of  a  tenancy 
in  common  whenever  the  expressions  in  a  conveyance  or  the  acts  of  the  parties 
permit  such  a  construction;  ^^  and  generally  under  the  statutes  of  the  respective 
states,  and  by  judicial  construction,  estates  which  would  have  been  joint  at 
common  law  are  made  estates  in  common.^*  Thus  a  tenancy  in  common  springs 
up  whenever  an  estate  in  real  or  personal  property  is  owned  concurrently  by  two 
or  more  persons  under  a  conveyance  or  under  circumstances  which  do  not  either 
expressly  or  by  necessary  implication  call  for  some  other  form  of  cotenancy. 


23.  See  Joint  Tenancy,  23  Cyc.  485,  4&6. 

24.  See  Joint  Tenancy,  23  Cyc.  485,  486. 

25.  Alabama. — Hendricks  c.  Clemmons,  147 
Ala.  590,  41  So.  306;  Colbey-Hinkley  Co.  v. 
Jordan,  146  Ala.  634,  41  So.  962;  Newbold 
V.  Smart,  67  Ala.  326. 

Alaska. —  Einswanger  v.  Henninger,  1 
Alaska  509. 

California. — Wittenbrock  v.  Wheadon,  128 
Cal.  150,  60  Pac.  664,  79  Am.  St.  Kep.  32; 
Hewlett  V.  Owens,  50  Cal.  474. 

Connecticut. —  Barniim  v.  Landon,  25  Conn. 
137;  Young  v.  Williams,  17  Conn.  393;  Oviatt 
V.  Sage,  7  Conn.  95. 

Delaware. —  Tubbs  v.  Lynch,  4  Harr.  521. 

Georgia. —  McCrary  v.  Glover,  lOO  Ga.  90, 
26  S.  E.  102;  McEea  v.  Button,  95  Ga.  267, 
22  S.  E.  149;   Grimes  v.  Little,  56  Ga.  649. 

Hawaii. —  Godfrey  v.  Rowland,  17  Hawaii 
577;  Godfrey  v.  Tvowland,  16  Hawaii  377,  388; 
Hawaiian  Trust,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Barton,  16 
Hawaii  294;  Paaluhi  v.  Keliihaleole,  11 
Hawaii  101;  Thurston  t\  Allen,  8  Hawaii  392; 
Kalaeokekoi  v.  Kahele,  7  Hawaii  147 ;  King 
V.  Robertson,  6  Hawaii  718;  In  re  Congdon, 
6  Hawaii  633;  Awa  v.  Horner,  5  Hawaii  543; 
Kane  i"..  Perry,  3  Hawaii  663;  Matter  of 
Vida,  1  Hawaii  107. 

Illinois. —  Rogers  v.  Tyley,  144  111.  652,  32 
N.  E.  393;  Eraser  v.  Gates,  118  111.  99,  1 
N.  E.  817. 

Indiana. —  Sims  v.  Dame,  113  Ind.  127,  15 
N.  E.  217. 

Iowa.—  Truth  Lodge  No.  213  A.  F.  &  A.  M. 
V.  Barton,  119  Iowa  230,  93  N.  W.  106.  97 
Am.  St.  Rep.  303:  Arthur  v.  Chicagro.  etc., 
R.  Co.,  61  Iowa  648,  17  N.  W.  24;  Conn  v. 
Conn,  58  Iowa  747    13  N.  W.  5]. 

Kentucky. —  Pope  v.  Brassfield.  110  Ky. 
128,  61  S.  W.  5,  22  Ky.  L.  Rep.  16a3;  Trues- 
dell  V.  White,  13  Bu»h  610. 

Louisiana. —  Meyer  v.  Schurbruck,  37  La. 
Ann.  373. 

Maine. —  Carter  v.  Bailey,  64  Me.  458,  18 
Am.  Rep.  273. 

Massachusetts. —  Goell  v.  Morse.  126  Mass. 
480;  Beaumont  v.  Crane,  14 'Mass.  400. 

Michigan. —  Valade  v.  Masson.  135  Mich. 
41,  97  N.  W.  59;  Nowlen  v.  Hall,  128  Mich. 
274,  87  N.  W.  222;  In  re  Graff,  123'  Mich. 
456,  82  N".  W.  248;  Moreland  v.  Strong,  115 
Mich.  211,  73  N.  W.  140,  69  Am.  St.  Rep. 
553. 

Missouri. —  Primm  v.  Walker,  38   Mo.   94. 

Montana. —  Norman  v.  Corbley,  32  Mont. 
196,  79  Pac.  1059. 

New  Hampshire. — ^White  v.  Brooks,  43 
N.  H.  402;  Herbert  v.  Odlin,  40  N.  H.  267. 

New  Jersey. —  Jenkins  V.  Jenkins,  (Ch. 
1886)   5  Atl.  134. 

[II.  A] 


New  Yoj-fc.— McPhillips  v.  Fitzgerald,  177 
N.  Y.  543,  69  N.  E.  1126;  Prentice  v.  Janssen, 
79  N.  Y.  478  [affirming  14  Hun  549] ;  Taylor 
V.  Taylor,  43  N.  Y.  578;  Jackson  v.  Moore, 
94  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  504,  87  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
1101;  Levine  v.  Goldsmith,  83  N.  Y.  App. 
Div.  39»,  82  N.  Y.  Suppl.  299,  13  N.  Y.  Annot. 
Cas.  123 ;  Messing  t:  Messing,  64  N.  Y.  App. 
Div.  125,  71  N.  Y.  Suppl.  717;  Chittenden 
V.  Gates,  18  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  169,  45  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  768;  Preston  v.  Fitch,  19  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
849  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  137  N.  Y. 
41,  33  N.  E.  77];  Wiswall  v.  MoGown,  2 
Barb.  270  [affirmed  in  10  N.  Y.  465] ;  Matter 
of  New  York,  41  Misc.  134,  83  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
951  (the  erection  of  piers  by  a  city  under  a 
statute  vesting  authority  for  such  erection 
and  directing  it  to  grant  common  interests 
to  abutting  property  holders)  ;  Baumann  v. 
Guion,  21  Misc.  120,  46  N.  Y.  Suppl.  715. 

North  Carolina. —  Boylston  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Davis,  68  N.  C.  17,  12  Am.  Rep.  624 ;  Pitt  v. 
Petway,  34  N.  C.  69;  Parker  v.  Vick,  22 
N.  C.  195. 

Ohio. —  Roberts  v.  Remy,  56  Ohio  St.  249, 
46  N.  E.  1066;  Weakly  v.  Hall,  13  Ohio  167, 
42  Am.  Dec.  194;  Greene  v.  Graham,  5  Ohio 
264;  Massie  v.  Long,  2  Ohio  287,  15  Am.  Dec. 
547. 

Oklahoma. —  Logan  v.  Oklahoma  Mill  Co., 
14  Okla.  402,  79  Pac.  103. 

Oregon. —  Beezley  v.  Crossen,  14  Oreg.  473, 
13  Pac.  306. 

Pennsylvania. —  Bush  v.  Gamble,  127  Pa. 
St.  43,  17  Atl.  865;  Coleman's  Appeal,  62 
Pa.  St.   252;   Caines  v.  Grant,  5   Binn.   119. 

South  Carolina. — -Harvin  v.  Hodge,  Dud- 
ley 23. 

Tennessee. —  Hoffman  v.  Lyons,  5  Lea  377; 
Cheek  i\  Wheatley,  3  Snecd  484;  Terrell  v. 
Murray,   2  Yerg.   384. 

Texas. —  McDougal  r.  Bradford,  80  Tex. 
558,  16  S.  W.  619;  Peterson  v.  Fowler,  73 
Tex.  524,  11  S.  W.  534;  Thomas  v.  Morrison, 
(Civ.  App.  1898)  46  S.  W.  46;  Mahon  v. 
Barnett,   (Civ.  App.  1897)    45  S.  W.  24. 

Utah. —  Lehi  Irr.  Co.  v.  Moyle,  4  Utah  327, 
9  Pac.  867. 

Vermont. —  Spencer  v.  Austin,  38  Vt.  258; 
Aiken  v.  Smith,  21  Vt.  172;  McFarland  v. 
Stone,  17  Vt.  163,  44  Am.  Deo.  325. 

Washington. — Anderson  v.  Snowden,  44 
Wash.  274,  87  Pac.  356. 

West  Virginia. —  Davis  v.  Settle,  43  W.  Va. 
17,  26  S.  E.  557. 

Wisconsin. — Ashland  Lodge  No.  63  I.  O 
0.  F.  V.  Williams,  100  Wis.  223,  75  N.  w! 
954;  Richards  f.  Koenig,  24  Wis.  360;  Wright 
V.  Sperry,  21  Wis.  331;  Higgins  v.  Riddell, 
12  Wis.  587 ;  Welch  v.  Sackett,  12  Wis.  243  • 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[88  CycJ     7 


It  is  held  that  a  tenancy  in  common  may  be  created  by  will/"  by  descent,^ 


Hungertord  v.  Gushing,  8  Wis.  332;  Challe- 
foux  V.  Duoharme,  8  Wis.  287. 

United  States. —  Davis  v.  Chapman,  36  Fed. 
42;  Aspen  Min.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Eucker,  28  Fed. 
220;  Austin  v.  Eutland  R.  Co.,  17  Fed.  466, 
21  Blatchf.  358;  Eobison  v.  Codman,  20  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,970,  1  Sumn.  121;  Stillman  v. 
White  Rock  Mfg.  Co.,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,446, 
3  Woodb.  &  M.  588. 

Canada. —  Lewis  v.  Allison,  30  Can.  Sup. 
Ct.  173;  Kerr  v.  Connell,  2  N.  Brunsw.  133; 
Wiggins  V.  White,  2  N.  Brunsw.  97 ;  Brady 
V.  Arnold,  19  U.  C.  C.  P.  42,  48;  Leech  v. 
Leech,  24  U.  C.  Q.  B.  321 ;  Colver  v.  MacKlem, 
11  U.  C.  Q.  B.  513. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  5  ef  seq. 

The  pioprietoTs  of  a  mining  ditch  are  ten- 
ants in  common  of  real  estate.  Bradley  v. 
Harkness,  26  Cal.  69. 

A  conveyance  to  one  under  an  agreement 
to  hold  for  himself  and  others  makes  the 
vendee  tenant  in  common  with  the  others. 
Davis  v.  Givens,  71  Mo.  94;  Anderson  v. 
Snowden,  44  Wash.  274,  87  Pac.  356.  Com- 
pare Morris  v.  Eoseberry,  46  W.  Va.  24,  32 
S.  E.  1019. 

Conveyance  by  trustees  under  mistake  as 
to  authority  to  convey  the  entire  tract  makes 
the  vendor  and  vendee  tenants  in  common. 
Grimes  v.  Little,  56  Ga.  649. 

Trading  property  for  a  slave  see  Cheek  v. 
Wheatley,  3  Sneed   (Teun.)   484. 

The  question  as  to  the  existence  of  a  ten- 
ancy in  common  is  for  the  jury  where  there 
is  evidence  tending  to  prove  such  a  relation- 
ship. Inglis  V.  Webb,  117  Ala.  387,  23  So. 
125;  Eucker  v.  Wheeler,  127  U.  S.  85,  8 
S.  Ct.  1142,  32  L.  ed.  102.  Thus  whether  or 
not  a  tenancy  in  common  exists  in  crops  is 
a  question  for  the  jury  where  an  alleged 
agreement  upon  which  such  claim  is  founded 
is  by  parol  or  ambiguous.  Bromley  v.  Miles, 
51  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  95,  64  N.  Y.  Suppl.  353. 

A  sealed  agreement  merely  to  pay  a  share 
of  crops  in  return  for  work,  labor,  and  ma- 
terials does  not  per  se  create  a  tenancy  in 
common,  in  the  absence  of  statute.  Patten 
V.  Heustis,  26  N.  J.  L.  293. 

Tenancy  in  common  in  timber. — Where  an 
agreement  is  made  that  one  of  the  parties 
shall  find  timber  and  the  other  shall  manu- 
facture it  into  some  article  and  they  shall 
each  then  be  entitled  to  some  aliquot  part 
of  the  articles  so  manufactured,  or  where 
an  agreement  is  made  that  one  party  is  to 
supply  the  timber  and  the  other  shall  do 
some  work  and  labor  thereon,  and  they  are 
then  to  receive  proportionate  shares  thereof, 
the  beneficiaries  under  said  agreement  are 
tenants  in  common  and  not  partners,  and  each 
has  a  right  to  dispose  only  of  his  own  in- 
terest therein.  White  v.  Brooks,  43  N.  H. 
402;  Kerr  v.  Connell,  2  N.  Brunsw.  133; 
Wiggins  V.  White,  2  N.  Brunsw.  97.  A  sale 
of  standing  timber  on  designated  land,  to 
be  cut  and  removed  at  a  specified  rate,  vests 
the  exclusive  title  to  the  timber  in  the  pur- 
chasers, and  leaves  the  exclusive  title  to  the 


land  in  the  sellers,  and  does  not  make  the  pur- 
chasers and  sellers  tenants  in  common  in 
either  the  land  or  the  timber.  Dexter  v.  Lath- 
rop,  136  Pa.  St.  565,  20  Atl.  545.  Compare 
Wheeler  v.  Carpenter,  107  Pa.  St.  271.  Where 
there  is  no  joint  undivided  interest  in  the 
whole  property,  and  separate  interests  are  de- 
pendent on  surveys  that  should  have  been  or- 
dered by  plaintiff,  plaintiff,  having  failed  to 
order  a  survey,  cannot  take  advantage  of  its 
own  fault  for  the  creation  of  a  cotenancy;  and 
it  cannot  sue  as  a  cotenant  for  timber  taken 
from  the  unsurveyed  tract.  U.  S.  v.  Northern 
Pac.  E.  Co.,  6  Mont.  351,  12  Pac.  769. 

Tenancy  in  common  in  waters  see  Bailey 
V.  Eust,  15  Me.  440;  Eichards  v.  Koenig,  24 
Wis.  360 ;  Stillman  v.  White  Eock  Mfg.  Co., 
23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,446,  3  Woodb.  &  M.  538 ; 
Austin  V.  Eutland  E.  Co.,  17  Fed.  466,  21 
Blatchf.  358'.  The  mere  privilege  of  drawing 
water  for  a,  conveyed  business  so  long  as 
the  grantee  should  carry  on  the  business,  the 
grantee  paying  share  of  repairing  expenses, 
does  not  create  a  tenancy  in  common  in  the 
right  to  use  the  water.  Shed  v.  Leslie,  22 
Vt.  498. 

Tenancy  in  common  in  ditch  see  Yannest 
1?.  Fleming,  79  Iowa  638,  44  N.  W.  906,  18 
Am.  St.  Eep.  387,  8  L.  E.  A.  277;  Lehi  Irr. 
Co.  V.  Moyle,  4  Utah  327,  9  Pac.  867.  An 
agreement  for  several  ownership  of  water  in 
a  ditch,  for  use  on  the  several  lands  of  the 
respective  owners,  does  not  create  a  tenancy 
in  common.  Telluride  V.  Davis,  33  Colo.  355, 
80  Pac.  1051. 

36.  See  Wills.  And  see  cases  cited  infra, 
note  28. 

27.  Alabama. —  Fles  v.  Eosser,  162  Ala. 
504,  50  So.  287;  Inglis  v.  Webb,  117  Ala. 
387,  23  So.  125;  Ohmer  v.  Boyer,  89  Ala.  273, 
7  So.  663. 

Connecticut. —  Wooster  v.  Hunts  Lyman 
Iron  Co.,  38  Conn.  256. 

Illinois. — iBrumback  v.  Brumback,  198  111. 
66,  64  N.  E.  741 ;  Kotz  V.  Belz,  178  111.  434, 
53  N.  E.  367. 

Indiama. —  MoPheeters  v.  Wright,  124  Ind. 
560,  24  N.  E.  734,  9  L.  E.  A.  176;  Kidwell  v. 
Kidwell,  84  Ind.  224;  Centreville,  etc..  Turn- 
pike Co.  V.  Jarrett,  4  Ind.  213. 

Iowa. —  German  v.  Heath,  139  Iowa  52,  116 
N.  W.  1051;  Bowen  v.  Duffie,  66  Iowa  88,  23 
N.  W.  277. 

Kentucky. —  Kidd  v.  Bell,  (1909)  122 
S.  W.  232. 

Louisiana. —  Meyer  v.  Schurbruck,  37  La. 
Ann.  373. 

Maryland. —  Hoffar  c.  Dement,  5  Gill  132, 
46  Am.  Dec.  628. 

Michigan. —  Fenton  f.  Miller,  94  Mich.  204, 
53  N.  W.  957. 

'New  York. —  Cruger  v.  McLaury,  41  N.  Y. 
219  [affirming  51  Barb.  642] ;  Phelan  v. 
Kelly,  25  Wend.  389.  Compare  Jackson  f. 
O'Donaghy,  7  Johns.  247. 

Porto  Rico. —  Soriano  v.  Arrese,  1  Porto 
Eico  Fed.  198,  201. 

Texas. —  McDougal  v.  Bradford,  80  Tex. 
558,   16  S.  W.  619;   Rowland  v.  Murphy,  66 

[II,  A] 


8     [38  CycJ 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


and  the  relation  may  be  brought  into  existence  by  purchase,  sale,  or  conveyance/ 


Tex.  534,  1  S.  W.  658;  Kirby  r.  Blake,  (Civ. 
App.  1909)   115  S.  W.  074. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenanr.v  in  Com- 
mon," §  6. 

A  widow  and  children  are  tenants  in  com- 
mon witli  the  cotenants  of  the  deceased.  Mc- 
Clure  V.  Colyear.   80   Cal.  378,  22  Pac.   175. 

The  widow  and  the  heirs  are  tenants  in 
common  until  assignment  of  dower.  Wooster 
V.  Hunts  Lyman  Iron  Co.,  38  Conn.  256; 
Montague  x,.  Selb,  106  111.  49.  And  a  widow 
holding  as  dowress  and  as  guardian  vn,  socage 
of  minor  heirs  is  tenant  in  common  with  the 
other  heirs.  Knolls  v.  Barnhart,  71  N.  Y. 
474. 

A  husband,  heir  at  law  of  wife,  thus  hav- 
ing undivided  interest  in  realty,  holds  as 
tenant  in  common  with  the  other  owners. 
Thompson  v.  Sanders,  113  Ga.  1024,  39  S.  E. 
419. 

In  the  Hawaiian  Islands  if  a  contingent  re- 
mainder vests  in  an  only  child  and  upon  the 
death  of  the  child  the  property  vests  in  the 
parents,  they  are,  by  statute,  tenants  in  com- 
mon. Booth  V.  Baker,  10  Hawaii  543.  On 
the  death  of  one  partner  his  representatives 
become  tenants  in  common  with  the  sur- 
vivor. Un  Wong,  Admr.  v.  Kan  Chu  et  al., 
5  Hawaii  225. 

Surviving  husband  and  heirs  of  wife. — 
Property  purchased  during  the  lifetime  of  a 
wife,  in  which  she  has  an  interest,  creates, 
upon  her  death,  a  tenancy  in  common  be- 
tween her  surviving  husband  and  her  sur- 
viving children.  Rowland  v.  Murphy,  66  Tex. 
534,  1  S.  W.  658.  But  the  heirs  of  the  de- 
ceased wife,  and  her  surviving  husband,  are 
not  tenants  in  common  in  the  wife's  realty, 
he  being  entitled  to  the  exclusive  possession 
thereof  as  tenant  by  the  curtesy.  Martin  v. 
Castle,  193  Mo.  183,  91  S.  W.  930. 

The  remainder-men  of  a  life-tenant  upon 
her  death  became  tenants  in  common  with  one 
who  had  owned  all  of  the  common  land  ex- 
cepting the  life-interest  and  the  remainder 
thereof,  and  who  had  purchased  the  life-in- 
terest. Austin  V.  Rutland  R.  Co.,  17  Fed. 
466,  21  Blatchf.  35«. 

At  common  law  tenancy  in  common  could 
not  arise  by  descent.  Jackson  v.  Livingston, 
7  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  136;  Pruden  v.  Paxton,  79 
N.  C.  446,  28  Am.  Rep.  33?;  Fisher  v.  Wigg, 

1  P.  Wms.  14,  24  Eng.  Reprint  275.    See  also 

2  Reeves  Real  Prop.  §  685. 

28.  Alahama. —  Ohmer  v.  Boyer,  89  Ala. 
273,  7  So.  663;   Smith  v.  Rice,  56  Ala.  417. 

California. —  Reed  v.  Spicer,  27  Cal.  57. 

Georgia. —  McRae  v.  Button,  95  Ga.  267,  22 
S.  E.  149;  Grimes  v.  Little,  56  Ga.  649; 
Bazemore  v.  Davis,  55  Ga.  504. 

Hawaii. —  Hayselden  v.  Wahineaea,  10 
Hawaii   10. 

Illinois. —  Haven  v.  Mehlgarten,  IS  111.  91. 

Iowa. —  Gilmore  v.  Jenkins,  129  Iowa  686, 
106  N.  W.  193. 

Kansas. — ^Erskin  v.  Wood,  77  Kan.  577, 
95  Pac.  413. 

Kentucky. —  Craig  f.  Taylor,  6  B.  Mon. 
457,  holding  that  a  deed  to  two  persons  by 

[II,  A] 


one  common  boundary  stating  the  particular 
interests  conveyed  to  each  makes  them  ten- 
ants in  common. 

Maine. —  Brown  v.  Bates,  55  Me.  520,  92 
Am.  Dec.  613. 

Massachusetts. —  Higbee  v.  Rice,  5  Mass. 
344,  4  Am.  Dec.  63. 

Missouri. —  McCaul  v.  Kilpatrick,  46  Mo. 
434. 

Nelraska. —  Schuster  v.  Schuster,  84  Nebr. 
98,  120  N.  W.  9-48. 

New  Jersey.— Jenkins  v.  Jenkins,  (Ch. 
1886)  5  Atl.  134. 

New  York. —  Ferris  v.  Nelson,  60  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  430,  69  N.  Y.  Suppl.  99e ;  St.  Paul's 
Church  V.  Ford,  34  Barb.  16;  Hosford  v. 
Merwin,  5  Barb.  51;  Mumford  V.  McKay,  8 
Wend.  442,  24  Am.  Dec.  34,  holding  that 
where  crops  were  raised  in  partnership  and 
a  moiety  of  the  land  was  conveyed  to  a 
stranger,  such  conveyance  created  a  tenancy 
in  common  in  the  crops. 

North  Carolina. —  Parker  v.  Viek,  22  N.  C. 
195;  Cloud  v.  Webb,  14  N.  C.  317. 

Pennsylvania. —  Coleman's  Appeal,  62  Pa. 
St.  252;  Caines  v.  Grant,  5  Binn.  119;  Bam- 
baugh  V.  Bambaugh,  11  Serg.  &  R.  191. 

South  Carolina. —  Green  v.  Cannady,  77 
S.  C.  193,  57  S.  E.  832;  Harvin  v.  Hodge, 
Dudley  23.  See  also  Fuller  v.  Missroom,  35 
S.  C.  314,  14  S.  E.  714. 

Tennessee. —  Cheek  v.  Wheatley,  3  Sneed 
484. 

Wisconsin. — 'Richards  v.  Koenig,  24  Wis. 
360;  Welsh  v.  Sackett,  12  Wis.  243. 

United  States. —  Gratz  v.  Land,  etc..  Imp. 
Co.,  82  Fed.  381,  27  C.  C.  A.  305,  40  L.  R.  A. 
393. 

England. —  Bryan  v.  Twigg,  L.  R.  3  Ch. 
183,  37  L.  J.  Ch.  249,  19  Wkly.  Rep.  298; 
In  re  Pickworth,  [1899]  1  Ch.  642,  68  L.  J. 
Ch.  324,  80  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  212;  In  re 
Atkinson,  [1892]  3  Ch.  52,  61  L.  J.  Ch.  504, 
66  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  717,  40  Wkly.  Rep.  666; 
In  re  Yates,  [1891]  3  Ch.  53,  64  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  819,  39  Wkly.  Rep.  573  [disapproving 
Shepherdson  f.  Dale,  12  Jur.  N.  S.  156,  13 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  699];  Surtees  t\  Surtees, 
L.  R.  12  Eq.  400,  25  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  288, 
19  Wkly.  Rep.  1043;  Ryves  v.  Ryves,  L.  R. 
11  Eq.  539,  40  L.  J.  Ch.  252;  Heasman  f. 
Pearse,  L.  R.  11  Eq.  522,  40  L.  J.  Ch.  258, 
24  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  864,  19  Wkly.  Rep.  673 
[aifirmed  in  L.  R.  7  Ch.  275,  41  L.  J.  Ch. 
705,  26  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  299,  20  Wkly.  Rep. 
271] ;  Hodges  v.  Grant,  L.  R.  4  Eq.  140,  36 
L.  J.  Ch.  935,  15  Wkly.  Rep.  607;  Rigden 
V.  Vallier,  3  Atk.  731,  2  Ves.  252,  26  Eng. 
Reprint  1219';  Haws  v.  Haws,  3  Atk.  524, 
26  Eng.  Reprint  1102,  1  Ves.  13,  27  Eng. 
Reprint  859,  1  Wils.  C.  P.  165,  95  Eng.  Re- 
print 552;  Ridout  v.  Pain,  3  Atk.  486,  26 
Eng.  Reprint  1080;  Sheppard  v.  Gibbons,  2 
Atk.  441,  26  Eng.  Reprint  666;  Ulrich  v. 
Litchfield,  2  Atk.  373,  26  Eng.  Reprint  625; 
Owen  V.  Owen,  1  Atk.  494,  26  Eng.  Reprint 
313;  Leak  v.  Macdowall,  32  Beav.  28,  55 
Eng.  Reprint  11;  Patterson  f.  Rowland,  28 
Beav.  347,  54  Eng.  Reprint  399;  Haddelsey 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON  [38  Cyc]    9 

It  is  not  the  form  of  instrument  which  determines  the  existence  of  the  relation, 


V.  Adams,  22  Beav.  266,  2  Jur.  N.  S.  724,  25 
L.  J.  Ch.  826,  52  Eng.  Reprint  1110;  In  re 
Tiverton  Market  Act,  20  Beav.  374,  1 
Jur.  N.  S.  487,  24  L.  J.  Ch.  657,  3  Wkly. 
Eep.  118,  52  Eng.  Reprint  647;  Ive  v.  King, 
16  Beav.  46,  16  Jur.  489,  21  L.  J.  Ch.  560, 
51  Eng.  Reprint  693;  Campbell  v.  Campbell, 
4  Bro.  Ch.  15,  29  Eng.  Reprint  755;  Arm- 
strong V.  Eldridge,  3  Bro.  Ch.  215,  29  Eng. 
Reprint  497 ;  JoUiffe  v.  East,  3  Bro.  Ch.  25, 
29  Eng.  Reprint  387;  Edwards  v.  Champion, 
3  De  G.  M.  &  G.  202,  1  Eq.  Rep.  419,  23 
L.  J.  Ch.  123',  1  Wkly.  Rep.  497,  52  Eng. 
Ch.  202,  43  Eng.  Reprint  80 ;  Gordon  n.  Atkin- 
son, 1  De  6.  &  Sm.  478,  63  Eng.  Reprint 
1156;  Lanphier  v.  Buck,  2  Dr.  &  Sm.  484,  11 
Jur.  N.  S.  837,  34  L.  J.  Ch.  650,  12  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  660,  6  New  Rep.  196,  13  Wkly.  Eep.  767, 
62  Eng.  Reprint  704 ;  Oakley  v.  Young,  3  Eq. 
Cas.  Abr.  536;  Kenworthy  v.  Ward,  1  Eq. 
Rep.  389,  11  Hare  196,  17  Jur.  1047,  1  Wkly. 
Rep.  493,  45  Eng.  Ch.  196,  68  Eng.  Reprint 
1245;  Re  Grove,  3  Giflfard  575,  9  Jur.  N.  S. 
38,  6  L.  T.  Rep.  N".  S.  376,  66  Eng.  Reprint 
537;  Taaffe  v.  Conmee,  10  H.  L.  Cas.  64,  8 
jTir.  N.  S.  919,  6  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  666,  11 
Eng.  Reprint  940;  Trevor  v.  Trevor,  1  H.  L. 
Cas.  239  [affwming  13  Sim.  108,  6  Jur.  863, 
11  L.  J.  Ch.  417,  36  Eng.  Ch.  108,  60  Eng. 
Reprint  42] ;  Jones  v.  Randall,  1  Jac.  &  W. 
100,  20  Rev.  Rep.  237,  37  Eng.  Reprint  313; 
Harrison  V.  Barton,  1  Johns.  &  H.  287,  7 
Jur.  N.  S.  519,  30  L.  J.  Ch.  213,  3  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  614,  9  Wkly.  Rep.  177,  70  Eng.  Reprint 
756;  Lyon  v.  Coward,  10  Jur.  486',  15  L.  J. 
Ch.  460,  15  Sim.  287,  38  Eng.  Ch.  287,. 60 
Eng.  Reprint  628;  Pearce  f.  Edmeades,  3 
Jur.  245i  8  L.  J.  Exch.  61,  3  Y.  &  C.  Exch. 
246;  Shepherdson  v.  Dale,  12  Jur.  N.  S.  156, 
13  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  69?;  Hand  v.  North,  10 
Jur.  N.  S.  7,  33  L.  J.  Ch.  556,  9  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  634,  3  New  Rep.  239.,  12  Wkly.  Rep. 
229;  Booth  V.  Alington,  3  Jur.  N.  S.  835,  27 
L.  J.  Ch.  117,  5  Wkly.  Rep.  811;  Bird  v. 
Swales,  2  Jur.  N.  S.  273,  4  Wkly.  Rep.  227; 
In  re  Jones,  47  L.  J.  Ch.  775,  26  Wkly.  Rep. 
828;  Atty.-Gen.  v.  Sidney  Sussex  College,  38 
L.  J.  Ch.  656;  Sutcliffe  v.  Howard,  38  L.  J. 
Ch.  472;  Be  Moore,  31  L.  J.  Ch.  368,  6  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  43,  10  Wkly.  Rep.  315 ;  Grant  v. 
Winbolt,  23  L.  J.  Ch.  282,  2  Wkly.  Rep.  151; 
Eales  V.  Cardigan,  8  L.  J.  Ch.  11,  9  Sim.  384, 
16  Eng.  Ch.  384,  59  Eng.  Reprint  405;  Wood- 
gate  V.  Atkins,  9  L.  J.  Ch.  0.  S.  166;  Be 
Flower,  62  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  216;  Be  Quirk, 
61  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  364,  37  Wkly.  Rep.  796 ; 
Jones  V.  Jones,  44  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  642,  29 
Wkly.  Rep.  786;  Crosthwaite  v.  Dean,  40 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  837;  Apsey  f.  Apsey,  36 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  941 ;  Garland  v.  Brown,  10 
L.  T.  Eep.  N.  S.  292;  Draycott  v.  Wood,  8 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  304,  2  New  Rep.  55;  Bate- 
man  V.  Roach,  9  Mod.  104,  88  Eng.  Reprint 
344;  Doe  v.  Prestwidge,  4  M.  &  S.  178,  18 
Rev.  Rep.  436,  105  Eng.  Reprint  800 ;  Coe  v. 
Bigg,  1  New  Rep.  536 ;  Hamell  v.  Hunt,  Prec. 
Ch.  163,  24  Eng.  Reprint  79 ;  Taggart  V.  Tag- 
^art,  1  Sch.  &  Lef.  84;  Bridge  v.  Yates,  12 
Sim.  645,  35  Eng.  Ch.  545,  59  Eng.  Reprint 


1281 ;  Peters  v.  Dipple,  12  Sim.  101,  35  Eng. 
Ch.  86;  Woodgate  v.  Unwin,  4  Sim.  129,  6 
Eng.  Ch.  129,  58  Eng.  Eeprint  50;  Barker  v. 
Lea,  Turn.  &  E.  413,  24  Rev.  Rep.  85,  12 
Eng.  Ch.  413,  37  Eng.  Reprint  1160;  Peiton 
V.  Banks,  1  Vern.  Ch.  65,  23  Eng.  Eeprint 
314;  Thickness  v.  Vernon,  1  Vern.  Ch.  32,  23 
Eng.  Reprint  287;  Stones  v.  Heurtley,  1  Ves. 
165,  27  Eng.  Reprint  959 ;  Marryat  v.  Townly, 

1  Ves.  102, 27  Eng.  Reprint  918;  Crooke  v.  De 
Vandes,  11  Ves.  Jr.  330,  32  Eng.  Reprint 
1115;  Bolger  v.  Mackell,  5  Ves.  Jr.  509,  31 
Eng.  Reprint  707 ;  Perry  v.  Woods,  3  Ves.  Jr. 
204,  30  Eng.  Reprint  970;  Gant  f.  Lawrence, 
Wightw.  395;  Chatfield  v.  Berchtoldt,  18 
Wkly.  Rep.  8«7;  Alt  f.  Gregory,  3  Wkly. 
Rep.  630  [affirmed  in  8  De  G.  M.  &  G.  221, 

2  Jur.  N.  S.  577,  4  Wkly.  Rep.  436,  57  Eng. 
Ch.  172,  44  Eng.  Reprint  375];  Alt  f.  Greg- 
ory, 3  Wkly.  Rep.  630  [affirmed  in  8  De  6. 
M.  &  6.  221,  2  Jur.  N.  S.-577,  4  Wkly.  Eep. 
436,  57  Eng.  Ch.  172,  44  Eng.  Eeprint 
375]. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  8. 

A  deed  in  trust  for  a  woman  and  the  heirs 
of  her  deceased  husband  creates  an  estate  in 
common.  Bazemore  v.  Davis,  55  Ga.  504. 
Similarly  land  conveyed  to  a  trustee  on  trust 
for  the  benefit  of  life-tenants,  "  and  upon  the 
death  of  the  survivor  then  in  trust  to  be  ab- 
solutely vested  in  such  issue  of  their  present 
marriage  as  may  be  living,"  creates  a  ten- 
ancy in  common  in  the  remainder-men  taking 
the  land.  Fuller  v.  Missroon,  35  S.  C.  314, 
14  S.  E.  714. 

Deeds  made  under  a  decree  void  as  to  some 
heirs  make  the  grantee  a  tenant  in  common 
with  those  whose  titles  were  not  divested. 
Downing  v.  Ford,  9  Dana  (Ky.)   391. 

Where  a  deed  is  not  sufficient  to  convey 
the  interests  of  one  of  the  grantors,  he  be- 
comes a  tenant  in  common  with  the  vendee 
therein.     Cloud  v.  Webb,  14  N.  C.  317. 

Conveyance  of  part  of  a  tract  of  land  less 
than  the  whole  thereof  without  designating 
its  locality  creates  a  tenancy  in  common  be- 
tween the  grantor  and  the  grantee  (Gordon 
1>.  San  Diego,  101  Cal.  522,  36  Pac.  18,  40 
Am.  St.  Eep.  73  [affirming  (1893)  32  Pac. 
885];  Lawrence  v.  Ballou,  37  Cal.  518; 
Schenk  v.  Evoy,  24  Cal.  104 ;  Fisher  v.  Waile- 
hua,  16  Hawaii  154;  Gill  f.  Grand  Tower 
Min.,  etc.,  Co.,  92  111.  249;  Nowlen  v.  Hall, 
128  Mich.  274,  87  N.  W.  222;  MeCaul  v. 
Kilpatrick,  46  Mo.  434;  Anderson  v.  Donel- 
son,  1  Yerg.  (Tenn.)  197;  Ashland  Lodge 
No.  63  L  O.  O.  F.  t:  Williams,  100  Wis.  223, 
75  N.  W.  954,  69  Am.  St.  Eep.  912;  McNiel  v. 
McNiel,  4  Nova  Scotia  33),  and  the  convey- 
ance of  an  estate  in  common  by  the  respect- 
ive deeds  of  the  tenants  in  common  to  several 
grantees  creates  a  tenancy  in  common  be- 
tween such  grantees  (Reed  f.  Spicer,  27  Cal. 
57)  ;  but  a  grant  of  a  part  of  property,  in 
severalty,  to  be  assigned  from  a  certain  de- 
scribed tract,  does  not  create  a  tenancy  in 
common  (U.  S.  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  6 
Mont.  351,  12  Pac.  769). 

[II,  A] 


10     [38  Cye.J 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


but  the  concurrent  rights  in  the  same  property  at  the  same  time,  and  the  tenancy 


A  sale  of  standing  timber  on  designated 
land,  to  be  cut  and  rejnoved  at  a  specified 
rate,  vests  the  exclusive  title  to  the  timber 
in  the  purchasers,  and  leaves  the  exclusive 
title  to  the  land  in  the  sellers,  and  does  not 
make  the  purchasers  and  sellers  tenants  in 
common  in  either  the  land  or  the  timber. 
Dexter  v.  Lathrop,  136  Pa.  St.  565,  20  Atl. 
545  [distinguishing  Wheeler  v.  Carpenter, 
107  Pa.  St.  271]. 

A  purchase  of  encumbered  property  may 
make  the  purchaser  a  tenant  in  common  with 
others  owning  an  interest  therein.  Conn  v. 
Conn,  58  Iowa  747,  13  N.  W.  51;  Eoot  v. 
Stow,  13  Mete.  (Mass.)  5;  Herbert  v.  Odlin, 
40  N.  H.  267;  Stoddard  f.  Weston,  3  Silv. 
Sup.   (N.  Y.)   13,  6  N.  Y.  Suppl.  34. 

A  purchaser  of  the  share  of  a  tenant  in 
common  becomes  a,  tenant  in  common  with 
the  remaining  owner  or  owners.  Hewlett  v. 
Owens,  51  Cal.  570';  Stark  v.  Barrett,  15  Cal. 
361;  Barnum  v.  Landon,  25  Conn.  137; 
Oviatt  V.  Sage,  7  Conn.  95;  Fischer  v.  Esla- 
man,  68  111.  78;  Stevens  v.  Keynolds,  143 
Ind.  467,  41  N.  E.  931,  52  Am.  St.  Eep.  422; 
Pope  V.  Brassfield,  110  Ky.  128,  61  S.  W.  5, 
22  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1613;  Downing  f.  Ford,  9 
Dana  (Ky.)  391;  Bell  1;.  Layman,  1  T.  B. 
Mon.  (Ky.)  39,  15  Am.  Dec.  83;  Estey  v. 
Boardman,  61  Me.  595;  Liscomb  v.  Eoot,  8 
Pick.  (Mass.)  376;  Cook  v.  Clinton,  64  Mich. 
309,  31  N.  W.  317,  8  Am.  St.  Rep.  816; 
Alsobrook  v.  Eggleston,  69  Miss.  833,  13  So. 
850;  Childs  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  117 
Mo.  414,  23  S.  W.  373;  Prentice  v.  Janssen, 
79  N.  Y.  478  [affirming  14  Hun  548]  ;  Big- 
low  V.  Biglow,  75  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  98,  77 
N.  Y.  Suppl.  716;  Messing  v.  Messing,  64 
N.  Y.  App.  Div.  125,  71  N.  Y.  Suppl.  717; 
Archibald  f.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 
N.  Y.  App.  Div.  251,  37  N.  Y.  Suppl.  336 
[affirmed  in  157  N.  Y.  574,  52  N.  E.  567]; 
Earnshaw  v.  Myers,  1  N.  Y.  Suppl.  901 ; 
Northrop  v.  Wright,  24  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  221; 
St.  John  V.  Standring,  2  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  468; 
Battle  V.  John,  49  Tex.  202;  Hawkins  f. 
Hobson,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  igoS)  123  S.  W. 
183;  Hess  t.  Webb,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1908) 
113  S.  W.  618;  Heilbron  v.  St.  Louis  South- 
western R.  Co.,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1908)  113 
S.  W.  610,  979;  McAllen  v.  Raphael,  11  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  116,  32  S.  W.  449;  Kane  v.  Gar- 
field, 60  Vt.  79,  13  Atl.  800;  Spencer  v.  Aus- 
tin, 38  Vt.  258 ;  Vermont  L.  &  T.  Co.  f.  Car- 
din,  19  Wash.  304,  53  Pac.  164;  Wright  t: 
Sperry,  21  Wis.  331.  Compare  Weld  v.  Oli- 
ver, 21  Pick.  (Mass.)  559;  York  ;:.  Hutche- 
son,  37  Tex.  Civ.  App.  367,  83  S.  W.  895. 
Thus  where  land  owned  by  an  adult  and  in- 
fants was  sold,  and  the  purchaser  conveyed 
to  a  third  person  the  timber  thereon,  the 
third  person  was  a  tenant  in  common  with 
those  who  succeeded  to  the  infants'  right  to 
avoid  their  conveyance,  and  he  could  go  on 
the  premises  and  appropriate  a  part  at  least 
of  the  timber.  Hatton  v.  Bodan  Lumber  Co., 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.  1906)  123  S.  W.  163.  But 
where  one  in  adverse  possession  purchases  the 
undivided    interest    of    one    of    several    co- 

[II,  A] 


claimants,  merely  to  protect  himself  against 
litigation,  as  is  known  to  the  other  claim- 
ants, he  does  not  hold  as  tenant  in  common 
with  such  claimants  (Cooper  i:  Great  Falls 
Cotton  Mills  Co.,  94  Tenn.  688,  30  S.  W.  353), 
and  the  conveyances  by  a  tenant  in  common 
of  a  portion  of  the  common  estate  by  metes 
and  bounds  cannot  in  any  event  operate,  con- 
trary to  the  expressed  declarations  and  in- 
tentions of  the  parties,  to  convey  an  estate 
in  common,  instead  of  an  estate  in  severalty; 
and  a  creditor  of  the  grantee  who  levies  his 
execution  upon  an  undivided  share  of  the 
whole  common  estate  acquires  no  title  as 
tenant  in  common  by  virtue  of  such  levy 
(Soutter  V.  Porter,  27  Me.  405).  Similarly 
where  .some  of  the  heirs  of  the  deceased 
owner  conveyed  their  interest  to  a,  grantee, 
the  latter  became  a  tenant  in  common  with 
the  other  heirs,  and  a  srubsequent  conveyance 
by  the  grantee  to  a  third  person  of  a  speci- 
fied number  of  acres  of  the  land  was  effective 
as  against  the  other  heirs  or  their  grantee  as 
a  conveyance  of  the  grantee's  interest  therein 
only.  Hawkins  v.  Hobson,  (Tex.  Civ.  App. 
1909)   123  S.  W.  183. 

Cotenant's  deed  of  whole  property. —  If  one 
cotenant  sells  and  conveys  the  entire  prop- 
erty to  a  stranger  without  the  knowledge  or 
consent  of  his  cotenant  the  purchaser  does 
not  thereby  become  a  cotenant  with  the  re- 
maining owner.  Boggess  v.  Meredith,  16 
W.  Va.  1.  The  purchaser's  title  is  a  nullity 
and  the  sale  is  void.  Starnes  v.  Quin,  6  Ga. 
84.  Thus  a  deed  from  o^e  of  several  coten- 
ants  to  a  person  in  exclusive  possession,  con- 
veying all  the  property,  does  not  make  the 
grantee  a  cotenant  with  the  other  holders  of 
a  legal  title  so  as  to  render  his  possession 
not  adverse.  Frick  v.  Sinon,  75  Cal.  337,  17 
Pac.  439,  7  Am.  St.  Rep.  177 ;  King  v.  Car- 
michael,  136  Ind.  20,  35  N.  E.  509,  43  Am. 
St.  Eep.  303.  It  is  held,  however,  that  one 
who  assumes  to  purchase  from  one  of  two 
tenants  in  common  the  entire  interest  of 
both,  the  other  not  sanctioning  the  sale,  be- 
comes himself  a  tenant  in  common  with  the 
other  to  the  extent  that  the  latter  may  hold 
him  liable  if  he  converts  the  whole  to  his  ex- 
clusive use  (Sims  v.  Dame,  113  Ind.  127,  15 
N.  E.  217),  and  a  father,  to  whom  after  he 
has  conveyed  lands  in  common  to  his  chil- 
dren, one  of  them  reconveys  his  interest,  al- 
though by  a  deed  purporting  to  convey  the 
entire  tract,  is  held  to  thereby  become  a  ten- 
ant in  common  with  his  other  children  (Ste- 
vens r.  Wait,  112  111.  544). 

Judicial  sale. —  A  purchaser  at  a  judicial 
sale  of  the  interest  of  a  tenant  in  common 
will  occupy  the  place  of  him  whose  title  he 
acquired.  Leonard  v.  Scarborough,  2  Ga.  73; 
Fischer  v.  Eslaman,  68  HI.  78 ;  Battle  v.  John, 
49  Tex.  202;  Wright  v.  Sperry,  21  Wis.  331. 
But  see  Johnson  i:  Moser,  72  Iowa  523,  34 
N.  W.  314;  McCormick  v.  Bishop,  28  Iowa 
233. 

The  conveyance  of  an  undivided  interest  in 
crops  creates  the  relation  of  tenants  in  com- 
ninn  between  the  seller  and  buyer.     McAllen 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cycj     11 


can  arise  by  pledge  or  mortgage,^"  by  legislative  grant,'"  by  prescription/'  by  judg- 
ment or  decree/^  by  levy  or  execution,'*'  or  by  confusion  or  intermingling  of  goods, 


V.  Raphael,  11  Tex.  Civ.  App.  llfi,  32  S.  W. 
449;  Vermont  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Cardin,  19  Wash. 
304,  53  Pao.  164.  Compare  Nevels  v.  Ken- 
tucky Lumber  Co.,  108  Ky.  550,  56  S.  W. 
969,  22  Ky.  L.  Rep.  247,  49  L.  R.  A.  416. 

A  purchase  with  common  funds  constitutes 
the  purchasers  tenants  in  common.  McRea  v. 
Button,  95  6a.  267,  22  S.  E.  149;  Roberts  v. 
Remy,  56'  Ohio  St.  249,  46  N.  E.  1066..  This 
is  the  case  where  tliere  is  a  purchase  of  lands 
by  a  partnership  with  partnership  funds. 
Greene  v.  Graham,  5  Ohio  264. 

The  contempoTaneous  concurrent  grant  of 
the  same  property  to  different  persons  makes 
them  tenants  in  common.  Bambaugh  v.  Bam- 
baugh,  11  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  191;  Fuller  v. 
Missroon,  36  S.  C.  314,  14  S.  E.  714;  Young 
V.  De  Bruhl,  11  Rich.  (S.  C.)  638,  73  Am. 
Dee.  127. 

The  assignment  of  an  interest  in  a  chattel 
mortgage  creates  a  tenancy  in  common. 
Earll  V.  Stumpf,  56  Wis.  50,  13  N.  W.  701; 
McNiel  V.  McNiel,  4  Nova  Scotia  33 ;  Leech 
f.  Leech,  24  U.  C.  Q.  B.  321. 

Facts  held  not  to  establish  a  cotenancy  by 
a  tax  purchaser  in  land  sold  for  delinquent 
taxes  see  Sheean  v.  Shaw,  47  Iowa  411. 

29.  Smith  v.  Rice,  56  Ala.  417  (holding 
that  where  a  tenancy  in  common  in  the  crop 
is  created  between  the  owner  or  tenant  of  the 
land  and  the  cultiva,tor  on  shares  of  the  crop, 
and  the  owner  or  tenant  of  the  land  subse- 
quently mortgages  his  interest  in  said  crops, 
the  mortgagee  becomes  a  tenant  in  oommon  in 
said  crops  with  the  cultivators  thereof,  until 
after  division  thereof  has  been  made)  ;  Brown 
f.  Bates,  55  Me.  520,  92  Am.  Dec.  613.  But 
see  Barteau  v.  Merriam,  52  Minn.  222,  53 
N.  W.  1061. 

The  concurrent  execution  and  delivery  of 
two  chattel  mortgages  makes  the  mortgagees 
tenants  in  common  of  the  property,  and  in  a 
suit  for  the  conversion  thereof  they  may,  and 
if  required  by  defendant  they  must,  bring 
their  action  jointly.  Welch  v.  Sackett,  12 
Wis.  243. 

Pledgee  of  share  of  cotenant. —  Where  a 
warehouseman  owns  part  of  a  larger  uniform 
mass,  as  wheat  in  an  elevator,  and  pledges 
his  share  therein  by  issuing  and  delivering 
his  own  warehouse  receipt,  the  pledgee  be- 
comes tenant  in  common  with  the  other  own- 
ers. Hartford  Nat.  Exch.  Bank  v.  Wilder, 
34  Minn.  149,  24  N.  W.  609. 

A  mortgage  of  the  interest  of  a  cotenant 
or  a  foreclosure  of  such  mortgage  usually 
creates  the  relationship  of  cotenancy  between 
the  mortgagee  or  the  purchaser  at  such  sale, 
and  the  mortgagor's  cotenants.  Smith  v. 
Rice,  56  Ala.  417;  Young  v.  Williams,  17 
Conn.  393;  Conn  v.  Conn,  58  Iowa  747,  13 
N.  W.  51;  Brown  v.  Bates,  5S  Me.  520,  92 
Am.  Dee.  613;  Nowlen  v.  Hall,  128  Mich. 
274,  87  N.  W.  222;  Moreland  f.  Strong,  115 
Mich.  211,  73  N.  W.  140,  60  Am.  St.  Rep. 
563;  MeAllen  v.  Raphael,  11  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
116,  32  S.  W.  449;  Vermont  L.  &  T.  Co.  v. 


Cardin,  19  Wash.  304,  53  Pac.  164;  Wright 
v.  Sperry,  21  Wis.  331.  Compare  Barteau  v. 
Merriam,  52  Minn.  222,  53  N.  W.  1061.  Such 
newly  created  cotenant  by  purchase  is  en- 
titled to  the  use  and  occupation  of  the  com- 
mon property.  Moreland  v.  Strong,  115  Mich. 
211,  73  N.  W.  140,  69  Am.  St.  Rep.  553. 
The  distinction  between  tenancy  in  common 
and  joint  tenancy  as  applied  to  purchasers 
or  mortgagees  disapproved  see  Harrison  v. 
Barton,  1  Johns.  &  H.  287,  7  Jur.  N.  S.  519, 
30  L.  J.  Ch.  213,  3  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  614,  9 
Wkly.  Rep.  177,  70  Eng.  Reprint  756.  Com- 
pa/re  Brown  v.  Bates,  65  Me.  520,  92  Am.  Dec. 
613. 

A  mortgagee  of  an  interest  in  crops  may 
become  a  tenant  in  common  with  the  owners 
of  the  other  interests  therein;  and  his  co- 
tenants  have  no  right  to  infringe  upon  or 
interfere  with  his  interests  in  the  crop.  Ar- 
thur V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Iowa  648,  17 
N.  W.  24;  Porter  V.  Stone,  70  Miss.  291,  12 
So.  208;  McAUen  v.  Raphael,  11  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  116i  32  S.  W.  449;  Vermont  L.  &  T.  Co. 
V.  Cardin,  19  Wash.  304,  53  Pac.  164. 

30.  Haven  v.  Mehlgarten,  19  111.  91 ;  Higbee 
V.  Rice,  5  Mass.  344,  4  Am.  Dec.  63 ;  Young  v. 
De  Bruhl,  11  Rich.  (S.  C.)  638,  73  Am.  Dec. 
127;  Challefoux  v.  Ducharme,  8  Wis.  287. 
But  see  Rice  v.  Osgood,  9  Mass.  38. 

31.  Inglis  V.  Webb,  117  Ala.  387,  23  So. 
125;  Brock  v.  Benness,  29  Ont.  468. 

32.  McRea  v.  Dutton,  95  Ga.  267,  22  S.  E. 
149;  Coleman's  Appeal,  62  Pa.  St.  252;  Dorn 
V.  Beasley,  7  Rich.  Eq.  (S.  C.)  84.  But  see 
Gray  v.  Kauffmann,  82  Tex.  65,  17  S.  W. 
513. 

Deed  under  void  decree. —  Where  a  decree 
against  several  heirs  is  void  as  to  some,  the 
deed  made  thereunder  makes  the  grantee  a 
tenant  in  common  with  those  whose  titles 
were  not  divested  by  the  decree  and  deed. 
Downing  v.  Ford,  9  Dana  (Ky.)   391. 

33.  Young  V.  Williams,  17  Conn.  393; 
Leonard  v.  Scarborough,  2  Ga.  73;  Strick- 
land f.  Parker,  54  Me.  263  (holding  that  by 
levying  on  a  judgment  debtor's  undivided 
part  of  a  marine  railway  and  land  on  which 
it  is  located,  the  judgment  creditor  becomes 
tenant  in  common  with  the  other  owners)  ; 
Barney  v.  Leeds,  51  N.  H.  253  (holding  that 
where  a  creditor  causes  the  estate  of  his 
debtor,  of  greater  value  than  the  homestead 
right  of  the  latter  therein,  to  be  set  off  on 
execution,  subject  to  such  homestead  right, 
the  creditor  and  the  debtor,  after  the  levy  of 
the  creditor's  execution,  and  before  any  pro- 
ceedings by  either  for  a  separation  and  as- 
signment of  their  respective  interests,  are 
tenants  in  common  of  the  estate ) . 

Where  executions  are  levied  upon  land  by 
two  or  more  creditors  at  the  same  time  each 
acquires  by  levy  a  title  to  an  undivided  moi- 
ety of  the  land,  which  they  hold  as  tenants  in 
common.  Cutting  v.  Rockwood,  2  Pick. 
(Mass.)  443;  Shove  v.  Dow,  13  Mass.  529; 
Wiswall  V.  Wilkins,  5  Vt.  87. 

[II,  A] 


12     [38  Cye.J 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


by  consent  or  without  the  owner's  fault.^*  The  estate  may  come  to  the  tenants 
in  common  in  different  parcels  or  by  different  instruments,^  and  the  tenants  may 
hold  by  different  tenures,"  and  the  tenancy  in  common  may  be  created  in  all 
kinds  of  property,  real  and  personal,"  and  it  may  be  of  an  inchoate,  as  well  as 
of  a  perfect,  right.^*  The  law  will  not  construe  a  coownership  or  occupancy  of 
property  to  be  a  tenancy  in  common,  where  another  kind  of  tenancy  is  called 
for  by  the  expressed  intention  of  the  parties  or  by  the  circumstances  surround- 
ing the  case."'    A  cotenancy  and  the  proportionate  amounts  of  interests  therein 


34.  Low  V.  Martin,  18  111.  286';  Tufts  v. 
McClintock,  28  Me.  424,  48  Am.  Dec.  501 
Van  Liew  v.  Van  Liew,  36  N.  J.  Eq.  637 
Morgan  v.  Gregg,  46  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  183 
Moore  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  7  Lana.  (N.  Y.)  39' 
And  see  Confusion  of  Goods,  8  Cyc.  574, 
note  28. 

Confusion  of  grain  by  the  bailee  thereof  of 
various  bailors,  without  express  agreement, 
but  according  to  custom,  creates  a  tenancy  in 
common  therein  between  said  bailors.  Law- 
rence V.  Ballou,  37  Cal.  518;  Gill  f.  Grand 
Tower  Min.,  etc.,  Co.,  92  111.  249;  Arthur  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  61  Iowa  648,  17  N.  W. 
24;  Nelson  v.  Brown,  53  Iowa  555,  5  N.  W. 
719;  Hall  v.  Pillsbury,  43  Minn.  33,  44  N.  W. 
673,  19  Am.  St.  Hep.  209,  7  L.  R.  A.  529. 
The  pledgee  of  part  of  a  uniform  mass,  as 
wheat  in  an  elevator,  is  a  tenant  in  common 
therein.  Hartford  Nat.  Exch.  Bank  v.  Wilder, 
34  Minn.  149,  24  N.  W.  699. 

A  special  agent  commingling  Ms  own  prop- 
erty with  that  of  his  principal  cannot  thus, 
without  his  principal's  consent,  create  a  ten- 
ancy in  common.  Hall  v.  Page,  4  Ga.  42€, 
48  Am.  Dec.  235. 

35.  Wright  v.  Wright,  59  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 
176. 

36.  Wright  f.  Wright,  59  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 
176;  Putnam  v.  Ritchie,  6  Paige  (N.  Y.) 
390. 

37.  Cheek  v.  Wheatley,  3  Sneed  (Tenn.) 
484;  Waggoner  v.  Snody,  98  Tex.  512,  85 
S.  W.  1134. 

Tenancy  in  common  in  a  slave  see  Cheek 
V.  Wheatley,  3  Sneed  (Tenn.)   484. 

Tenancy  in  common  in  an  option  see  Var- 
ley  Duplex  Magnet  Co.  v.  Ostheimer,  159  Fed. 
655,  86  C.  C.  A.  523. 

A  homestead  may  be  owned  and  occupied 
by  husband  and  wife  as  tenants  in  common 
under  statutes.  Thorn  v.  Thorn,  14  Iowa  49, 
81  Am.  Dec.  451;  Lozo  v.  Sutherland,  38 
Mich.  168 ;  Horn  v.  Tufts,  39  N.  H.  478 ;  Mc^ 
Clary  v.  Bixby,  36  Vt.  254,  84  Am.  Dec. 
684. 

38.  Wilkins  v.  Burton,  5  Vt.  76. 

39.  California. —  Fairchild  v.  MuUan,  90 
Cal.  190,  27  Pac.  201 ;  Tully  v.  Tully,  71  Cal. 
338,  12  Pac.  246. 

Colorado. —  Telluride  v.  Davis,  33  Colo.  355, 
80  Pac.  1051,  108  Am.  St.  Rep.  101. 

Connecticut.—  Wooster  v.  Hunts  Lyman 
Iron  Co.,  38  Conn.  256. 

Indiana. —  Pulse  l'.  Osborn,  (App.  1901) 
60  N.  E.  374;  Anderson  School  Tp.  v.  Milroy 
Lodge  F.  &  A.  M.  No.  139,  130  Ind.  108,  29 
N.  E.  411,  30  Am.  St.  Rep.  206;  Centreville, 
etc.,  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Jarett,  4  Ind.  213. 

Iowa. —  Willcuts  V.  Rollins,  85  Iowa  247, 

[II.  A] 


52  N.  W.  199;  Johnson  v.  Moser,  72  Iowa 
523i,  34  N.  W.  314;  McCormick  V.  Bishop,  28 
Iowa  233. 

Maine. —  Soper  v.  Lawrence  Brothers  Co., 
98  Me.  268,  56  Atl.  908,  99  Am.  St.  Rep.  397 ; 
Abbott  V.  Wood,  13  Me.  115. 

Massachusetts. —  Hurd  v.  Gushing,  7  Pick. 
169;  Rice  v.  Osgood,  9  Mass.  38, 

Minnesota. —  Barteau  v.  Merliam,  52  Minn. 
222,  53  N.  W.  1061. 

Missouri. —  Martin  v.  Castle,  193  Mo.  183, 
91  S.  W.  930;  Badger  Lumber  Co.  v.  Stepp, 
157  Mo.  366',  57  S.  W.  1059. 

Montana. —  U.  S.  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co., 
»  Mont.  351,  12  Pac.  769. 

Nebraska. —  Barr  t".  Lamaster,  48  Nebr. 
114,  66  N.  W.  1110,  32  L.  R.  A.  451. 

New  Sampshire. —  Wiggin  v.  Wiggin,  43 
N.  H.  5«1,  80'  Am.  Dec.  1'92. 

New  Jersey. —  Patten  v.  Heustis,  26  N.  J.  L. 
293. 

New  York. —  Strong  v.  Harris,  84  Hun  314. 
32  N.  Y.  Suppl.  349;  Matter  of  Lent,  1  Misc. 
264,  22  N.  Y.  Suppl.  917. 

Ohio. —  Lockwood  v.  Mills,  3  Ohio  21. 

Pennsylvania. —  Enyard  v.  Enyard,  190  Pa. 
St.  114,  42  Atl.  526,  70  Am.  St.  Rep.  623; 
Dexter  v.  Lathrop,  136  Pa.  St.  565,  20  Atl. 
645;  McAdam  t.  Orr,  4  Watts  &  S.  550; 
Seitzinger  v.  Ridg^vay,  4  Watts  &  S.  472; 
Ross  V.  McJunkin,  14  Serg.  &  R.  364. 

Philippine. —  Liuanag  v,  Yu-Sonquian,  5 
Philippine  147. 

Tennessee.— CooTper  v.  Great  Falls  Cotton 
Mill  Co.,  94  Tenn.  588,  30  S.  W.  353. 

Texas. —  Roller  v.  Reid,  87  Tex.  69,  26  S.  W. 
1060;  Gray  v.  Kauffman,  82  Tex.  65,  17  S.  W. 
513;  York  V.  Hutcheson,  37  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
367,  83  S.  W.  895. 

Vermont. —  Shed  v.  Leslie,  22  Vt.  498 ; 
Willard  v.  Strong,  14  Vt.  532,  39  Am.  Dec. 
240. 

Washington. —  Anderson  v.  Snowden,  44 
Wash.  274,  87  Pac.  356;  Houghton  v.  Calla- 
han, 3  Wash.  158,  28  Pac.  377. 

West  Virginia. —  Morris  v.  Roseberry,  46 
W.  Va.  24,  32  S.  E.  1019. 

Wyoming. —  Gilland  v.  Union  Pa,c.  R.  Co., 
6  Wyo.  185,  43  Pac.  50S. 

Trustees  of  a  town  in  whom  the  title  of 
land  becomes  vested  hold  the  fee  as  a  unity 
having  no  separable  title  or  interest  avail- 
able of  being  converted  into  a  tenancy  in 
common.  Augusta  v.  Perkins,  3  B.  Mon. 
(Ky.)   437. 

Surface  and  mineral  rights. —  Where  one 
person  owns  the  metal  and  mineral  rights  in 
land  and  another  owns  the  fee  to  the  svtrface, 
they  are  not  tenants  in  common.  Adams  r. 
Briggs  Iron  Co.,  7  Cush.    (Mass.)    361;  Vir- 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc]     13 


having  been  shown  they  will  be  presumed,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the 
contrary,  to  continue.^" 

B.  Severance  and  Termination.  Tenancy  in  common  being  dependent 
upon  unity  of  possession/'  whenever  that  unity  is  destroyed,  the  tenancy  ter- 
minates.*^ Thus,  the  tenancy  is  dissolved  by  uniting  all  the  titles  and  interests 
in  one  tenant  by  purchase  or  otherwise,  which  brings  the  whole  to  one  severalty," 
by  ouster  of  one  tenant  in  common  by  his  cotenant,"  by  sale  or  conveyance  of 
the  common  property  to  a  third  person^  and  the  ascertainment  of  the  share  of 
each  cotenant,*°  by  the  destruction  of  the  common  property,*'  or  by  making 
partition  between  the  several  tenants  in  common  which  gives  them  all  respective 
severalties,  either  by  proceedings  in  partition,*'  or  by  amicable  agreement  and 
division.*"    But  until  actual  severance  of  the  common  property  the  tenancy  in 


ginia  Coal,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kelly,  93  Va.  332,  24 
S.  E.  1020. 

Where  an  inheritance  consisted  of  city  lots 
which  are  described  in  plats  as  separate,  each 
lot  constitutes  a  separate  holding  unless 
rented,  occupied,  or  otherwise  charged  in  com- 
mon with  others.  Butler  v.  Roys,  25  Mich. 
53,  12  Am.  Rep.  218. 

40.  Simon  x,.  Richard,  42  La.  Ann.  842,  8 
So.  629;  Clayton  v.  McCay,  143  Pa.  St.  225, 
22  Atl.  754;  Gilmer  f.  Beauchamp,  40  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  125,  87  S.  W.  907. 

41.  See  supra,  I,  A;  II,  A. 

42.  Norman  v.  Corbley,  32  Mont.  195,  70 
Pac.  1059. 

Occupancy  in  severalty  may  be  consistent 
with  a  tenancy  in  common.  Matter  of  New 
York,  41  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  134,  83  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
951. 

43.  Hinds  v.  Terry,  Walk.  (Miss.)  80; 
Jackson  v.  Burtis,  14  Johns.   (N.  Y.)   391. 

Where  a  cotenant  purchases  the  joint  prop- 
erty at  a  sale  in  partition  under  a  decree  of 
court,  the  cotenancy  is  thereby  severfd.  Ste- 
phens V.  Ells,  65  Mo.  456. 

44.  Vasquez  v.  Ewing,  24  Mo.  31,  66  Am. 
Dec.  694,  ouster  under  a  judgment  for  pos- 
session. 

45.  Davis  v.  Cass,  72  Miss.  985,  18  So.  454, 
sale  to  the  state  for  taxes. 

Conveyance  with  reservation  by  one  coten- 
ant.—  Where  a,  tenant  in  common  conveyed 
his  interest  by  a  deed  providing  that  the  land 
should  be  used  only  as  a  park,  and  reserving 
a  right  to  work  a  mine  thereon,  and  the  other 
cotenant  conveyed  to  the  same  grantee  with- 
out reservation,  the  grantor  who  made  the 
reservation  had  the  sole  and  exclusive  right 
to  work  the  mine,  and  did  not  hold  the  right 
in  common  with  the  other  cotenant.  New 
Haven  v.  Hotehkiss,  77  Conn.  168,  58  Atl. 
753.  But  where  a  tenant  in  common  con- 
veyed his  interest  in  the  premises,  reserving 
mineral  rights,  to  a  cotenant,  the  tenancy  in 
common  in  the  mineral  rights  was  not  dis- 
turbed, and  in  the  absence  of  an  open,  notori- 
ous assertion  of  claim  by  the  vendee  to  the 
minerals  and  some  direct  interference  with  or 
denial  of  the  vendor's  rights  therein,  the  ven- 
dor was  justiiied  in  assuming  that  the  ven- 
dee's holding  of  tlie  land  was  in  accordance 
with  the  terms  of  his  deed,  and  there  was  no 
such  ouster  as  to  set  limitations  in  motion 
against  the  vendor's  interest  in  the  mineral 


rights.  MoragTie  v.  Doe,  143  Ala.  459,  39  So. 
161,  HI  Am.  St.  Rep.  52. 

An  agreement  by  heirs  to  give  their  inter- 
est in  land  to  the  widow,  one  of  them  to  pro- 
cure tax  title  and  convey  the  land  to  her, 
divests  them  of  their  interest  as  tenants  in 
common,  although,  after  the  tax  title  is  pro- 
cured, she  agrees  that  the  one  procuring  it 
shall  have  the  land,  and  although  no  actual 
conveyance  was  made  to  the  widow.  Howe  V. 
Howe,  90  Iowa  582,  58  N.  W.  908. 

The  sale  of  the  common  estate  under  a 
power  severs  the  tenancy,  even  though  one 
of  the  tenants  in  common  therein  repurchase 
the  estate  from  the  vendee.  Jackson  v.  Bur- 
tis, 14  Johns.    (N.  Y.)   391. 

The  sale  of  a  part  of  the  common  property 
does  not  sever  the  cotenancy  in  the  balance 
thereof.  Wright  v.  Wright,  59  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)  176;  James  V.  James,  (Tenn.  Ch. 
App.  1901)   62  S.  W.  184. 

If  a  cotenant  conveys  an  undivided  interest 
equal  to  or  greater  than  that  which  he  pos- 
sesses in  said  common  property,  he  thereby 
severs  his  relationship  thereto.  Lopez  v. 
Ilustre,  5  Philippine  567.  Where  a  member 
of  a  partnership  owning  land  in  common  dies, 
and  his  cotenant  therein  conveys  an  undi- 
vided half  thereof,  merely  describing  himself 
as  surviving  partner,  he  thereby  severs  his 
relationship  of  cotenancy  in  said  land.  Gil- 
lett  V.  Gaffney,  3  Colo.  351. 

46.  Palmer  v.  Stryker,  12  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
737. 

The  sale  of  the  common  property  for  taxes 
to  several  persons  other  than  the  tenants 
in  common,  the  claim  in  severalty  by  each  of 
them  being  recognized  by  the  others  of  them, 
severs  the  tenancy  in  common.  Davis  v. 
Cass,  72  Miss.  985,  18  So.'  454. 

47.  See  Hinds  v.  Terry,  Walk.  (Miss.) 
80. 

If  the  interests  of  tenants  in  common  are 
sold  under  execution  and  purchased  by  differ- 
ent parties,  there  is  no  destruction  of  the 
common  ownership  amounting  to  a  severance 
of  the  tenancy  in  common.  Hinds  v.  Terry, 
Walk.   (Miss.)    80. 

48.  See  Partition,  30  Cyc.  145. 

49.  McKeithen  v.  Pratt,  53  Ala.  116;  Gaf- 
ford  V.  Stearns,  51  Ala.  434;  Whitten  v.  Han- 
son, 35  Me.  435;  Primm  v.  Walker,  38  Mo. 
94;  Lobdell  n.  Stowell,  51  N.  Y.  70.  But  see 
Campbell  v.  Shivers,  1  Ariz.  161,  25  Pac.  540. 

[II  B] 


14     [38  Cyc] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


common  continues,'"  a  mere  agreement  to  sever  without  actual  severance  being 
insufficient/'  Nor  can  a  tenancy  in  common  be  severed  by  words  in  a  deed, 
uncertain  and  ambiguous.^^  Ordinarily  one  tenant  in  common  cannot  himself 
take  his  own  share  withouh  the  consent  of  his  cotenant  and  thus  sever  the  tenancy 
in  common;  ^  but  when  the  common  property  is  personalty  divisible  by  weight, 
measure,  or  number  into  portions  identical  in  quality  and  value  one  tenant  in 
common  may  take  his  own  proportion  and  thus  make  a  valid  partition/''  The 
tenants  in  common  may  transfer  their  respective  interests  to  other  persons  at 
different  periods  without  a  destruction  of  the  tenancy  in  common,  unless  the  unity 
of  possession  be  destroyed  by  the  act  of  the  parties,^''  and  where  two  persons 
are  owners  of  a  chattel  indivisible  in  its  nature,  a  sale  by  one  of  them  of  his  share 
does  not  sever  the  tenancy; '"  nor  does  the  fact  that  the  subject  of  a  tenancy, 
which  has  descended  to  the  cotenants  as  tenants  in  common,  is  handed  over  to 
them  in  different  parcels  or  by  different  instruments  destroy  the  tenancy  in  com- 
mon/' The  fact  that  one  tenant  in  common  furnishes  no  money  to  aid  in  defend- 
ing the  title  in  a  suit  brought  against  his  cotenant  in  possession  does  not  amount 
to  an  abandonment  of  the  former's  title,'*  and  mere  lapse  of  time  does  not  dissolve 
a  cotenancy/'  Where  a  partial  division  is  rightfully  made  each  tenant  in  common 
holds  his  own  assigned  portion  in  severalty  and  remains  a  tenant  in  common  of 
the  undivided  residue/" 


III.    MUTUAL    RIGHTS,    DUTIES,    AND    LIABILITIES    OF     COTENANTS    AND 

INCIDENTS  OF  RELATION. 
A.  Fiduciary  Relation  of  Cotenants  Inter  Se.     While  it  is  held  that 
in  the  absence  of  some  equitable  reason  to  the  contrary,  tenants  in  common  do 


The  insertion  of  a  clause  in  a  deed  in  com- 
mon that  the  several  owners  shall  occupy 
separate  parts  of  the  common  property  does 
not  sever  the  cotenancy  therein;  nor  does  the 
sale  of  a  part  of  the  common  property  sever 
the  tenancy  in  common  in  the  balance  thereof. 
Dallagher  v.  Dallagher,  171  Mass.  503,  50 
N.  E.  1043. 

Where  tenants  in  common  of  a  quantity  of 
grain  agreed  to  a  division  thereof  to  settle 
the  portion  belonging  to  one,  the  apportion- 
ment operates  as  a  severance  of  the  tenancy 
in  common.     Lobdell  f.  Stowell,  51  N.  Y.  70. 

.50.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hart,  119 
Ind.  273,  21  N.  E.  753,  4  L.  E.  A.  549. 

A  tenancy  in  common  to  a  water  ditch, 
arising  under  a  deed,  is  not  severed  by  claim- 
ing under  a  promise  or  parol  license  from  a 
third  person,  where  the  deed  and  promise 
appear  to  be  parts  of  the  same  transaction. 
Campbell  v.  Shivers,  1  Ariz.  161,  2S  Pac.  540. 

51.  Burton  v.  Morris,  3  Harr.  (Del.)  269 
(holding  that  an  agreement  between  tenants 
in  common  that  each  shall  have,  collect,  re- 
ceive, and  enjoy  the  ground-rents  of  certain 
lots  held  in  common,  to  him,  his  heirs  and  as- 
signs forever,  and  clear  from  the  other,  did  not 
sever  the  tenancy  in  common,  there  being  no 
words  of  conveyance)  ;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Hart,  119  Ind.  273,  21  N.  E.  753,  4  L.  R.  A. 
549.  But  see  Howe  v.  Howe,  90  Iowa  582,  58 
N.  W.  908,  holding  that  an  agreement  by 
heirs  to  give  their  interest  in  land  to  the 
widow,  one  of  them  to  procure  tax  title  and 
convey  the  land  to  her,  divests  them  of  their 
interest  as  tenants  in  common,  although,  after 
the  tax  title  is  procured,  she  agrees  that  the 
one  procuring  it  shall  have  the  land,   and 

[II,  B] 


although  no  actual  conveyance  was  made  to 
the  widow. 

Unexecuted  agreement. —  An  agreement  to 
sever  the  property  upon  one  tenant  in  com- 
mon giving  a  note  for  his  share  does  not 
amount  to  a  severance  of  the  tenancy,  the 
tenant  in  commor.  having  failed  to  give  the 
note  in  accordance  with  the  agreement. 
Barnes  v.  Bartlett,  15  Pick.    (Mass.)    71. 

52.  Dallagher  i..  Dallagher,  171  Mass.  503, 
50  N.  E.  1043. 

53.  Pickering  v.  Moore,  67  N.  H.  533,  32 
Atl.  828,  68  Am.  St.  Rep.  695,  31  L.  R.  A. 
698. 

54.  Pickering  •;;.  Moore,  67  N.  H.  533,  32 
Atl.  828,  68  Am.  St.  Rep.  695,  31  L.  R.  A. 
698;  Moore  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  7  Lans.  (N.  Y.) 
39;  Channon  v.  Lusk,  2  Lans.  (N.  Y.)  211; 
Fobes  V.  Shattuck,  22  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  568; 
Tripp  V.  Riley,  15  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  333.  And 
see  Nelson  -c.  Brown,  53  Iowa  555,  5  N.  W. 
719. 

55.  Hinds  v.  Terry,  Walk.  (Miss.)  80, 
where  the  interests  of  the  tenants  in  com- 
mon were  sold  under  execution  and  purchased 
by  different  parties. 

56.  St.  John  V.  Standring,  2  Johns.  (N.  Y.) 
468. 

57.  Wright  v.  Wright,  59  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 
17fi. 

58.  Gosselin  v.  Smith,  154  111.  74,  39  N.  E. 
980.    But  see  Potter  «.  Herring,  57  Mo.  184. 

.59.  Yarwood  K.  Johnson,  29  Wash.  643,  70 
Pac.  123. 

60.  McKeithen  v.  Pratt,  53  Ala.  116;  Gaf- 
ford  v.  Stearns,  51  Ala.  434;  Fiquet  I?.  Alli- 
son, 12  Mich.  328,  86  Am.  Deo.  54;  Lobdell  v 
Stowell,  51  N.  Y.  70. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc]    15 


not  stand  in  a  strictly  fiduciary  relation  toward  each  other, '^  and  that  where 
tenants  in  common  are  not  partners  and  there  is  no  relation  of  mutual  trust  and 
confidence  between  them,  such  as  requires  a  disclosure  from  one  to  the  other  of 
matters  within  his  knowledge  that  may  affect  the  price  or  value  of  the  respective 
shares  they  may  deal  with  each  other  like  other  owners  of  separate  property,  °^ 
their  relation  is  to  an  extent  quasi-fiduciary,"^  and  one  cotenant  guilty  of  fraud 
may  not  avail  himself  of  the  advantage  thereof,  to  the  disadvantage  of  his 
cotenant.**  Tenants  in  common  by  descent  occupy  a  confidential  relation  toward 
each  other  by  operation  of  law,  as  to  the  joint  property,  and  the  same  reciprocal 
duties  are  imposed  as  if  a  joint  trust  were  created  by  contract  between  them  or 
by  the  act  of  a  third  person,  and  their  mutual  duties  and  obligations  to  sustain 
and  protect  the  common  interest  will  be  vindicated  and  enforced  in  a  court  of 
equity  as  a  trust;  and  they  and  those  claiming  under  them,  with  notice,  cannot 
assume  a  hostile  attitude  toward  each  other  in  reference  to  the  common 
property. "''    Even  where  the  cotenants  acquired  their  interests  by  a  joint  con- 


61.  Streeter  v.  Shultz,  45  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
406  [affirmed,  in  127  N.  Y.  652,  27  N.  E. 
857];  Kennedy  v.  De  Tiafford,  [1897]  A.  C. 
180,  66  L.  J.  Ch.  413,  76  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  427, 
45  Wkly.  Kep.  671. 

Tenants  in  common  of  a  vessel  who  are  not 
jointly  in  the  employment  of  purchasing  or 
building  ships  for  sale  do  not  stand  in  such 
relation  of  mutual  trust  and  confidence  to- 
ward each  other  in  respect  to  the  sale  of  such 
vessel  that  each  is  bound  in  his  dealings  with 
the  other  to  communicate  all  the  information 
of  facts  within  his  knowledge  which  may 
aflfeot  the  price  or  value.  A  different  rule 
may  prevail  in  respect  to  any  contract  for 
the  use  or  employment  of  the  common  prop- 
erty, in  which  relation  they  may  be  deemed 
to  place  confidence  mutually  in  each  other. 
In  dealing  with  each  other  in  matters 
of  purchase  and  sale,  each  may  act  upon 
the  knowledge  that  he  has  without  com- 
municating it;  but  there  must  be  no  studied 
efforts  to  prevent  the  other  from  coming  to 
the  truth,  nor  any  false  suggestions  or  repre- 
sentation. Matthews  v.  Bliss,  22  Pick.  (Mass.) 
48. 

A  tenant  in  common  is  not  trustee  for  his 
cotenant;  he  need  not  keep  possession  for 
him,  nor  protect  the  common  property  except- 
ing while  he  is  in  possession  thereof,  and 
then  he  is  only  liable  for  profits  derived  from 
his  cotenant's  share  thereof;  when  he  parts 
with  the  possession  of  the  common  property 
he  parts  with  its  liabilities.  Saunders  v.  Gat- 
lin,  21  N.  C.  86. 

62.  Matthews  v.  Bliss,  22  Pick.  (Mass.) 
48,  holding  also  that  in  a  suit  between  coten- 
ants for  the  recovery  of  damages  for  misrep- 
resentation of  the  value  of  the  plaintiff's 
share  in  a  vessel,  evidence  tending  to  prove 
that  the  full  value  of  said  share  had  been 
paid  by  defendant  to  plaintiff  was  admissible 
to  disprove  fraud  and  was  proper  for  the 
consideration  of  the  jury,  although  the  price 
for  which  the  vessel  was  sold  by  defendant 
was  strong,  although  not  conclusive  evidence 
of  its  value. 

63.  Walker  v.  Evans,  98  Mo.  App.  301,  71 
S.  W.  1086;  Burhans  v.  Van  Zandt,  7  N.  Y. 
523;  Smith  v.  Smith,  150  N.  C.  81,  63  S.  E. 
177;  Earll  D.  Stumpf,  56  Wis.  50,  13  N.  W. 
701. 


Where  a  tenant  in  common  buys  or  sells 
the  common  property  or  anything  appurte- 
nant or  necessary  thereto,  the  cost  or  pro- 
ceeds of  which  are  properly  chargeable  to  the 
common  property,  or  are  properly  to  be  cred- 
ited thereto,  and  the  purchase  or  sales  price 
by  the  bargaining  cotenant  is  not  fairly  dis- 
closed to  his  cotenants,  or  is  concealed  from 
them,  the  presumptions  of  law  are  against 
the  tenant  in  common  so  failing  to  make  dis- 
closure or  concealing,  as  the  case  may  be. 
King  V.  Wise,  43i  Cal.  628 ;  Garr  v.  Boswell, 
38  S.  W.  513,  18  Ky.  L.  Rep.  814. 

Where  there  was  an  agreement  between 
tenants  in  common  for  the  purchase  of  the 
common  property  at  a  certain  price  for  their 
benefit  at  a  foreclosure  sale  under  a  mechan- 
ic's lien,  and  said  property  was  purchased  at 
a  lesser  price  for  the  benefit  of  the  purchaser, 
he  was  accountable  to  his  cotenant  for  the 
cotenant's  share  of  the  abatement  so  obtained. 
Phelps  v.  Reeder,  39'  111.  172. 

64.  Calkins  v.  Worth,  117  111.  App.  478 
laffirmed  in  215  111.  78,  74  N.  E.  81] ;  Garr  r. 
Boswell,  38  S.  W.  513,  18  Ky.  L.  Rep.  814; 
Lewis  V.  Jacobs,  153  Mich.  664,  117  N.  W. 
325;  Clevenger  v.  Mayfield,  (Tex.  Civ.  App. 
1905)   86  S.  W.  1062. 

Where  one  tenant  in  common  unduly  delays 
recording  the  title  deed,  another  grantee  in 
common  may  compel  him  to  have  it  recorded. 
Smith  V.  Cole,  39  Hun  (N.  Y.)  248  [affirmed 
in  10i9  N.  Y.  436,  17  N.  E.  356]. 

Purchase  and  sale. —  A  part-owner  of  realty 
negotiating  a  sale  thereof,  for  himself  and 
as  agent  of  his  cotenant  therein,  and  not  dis- 
closing the  true  purchase-price  to  said  coten- 
ant is  liable  to  account  to  said  cotenant  for 
any  amount  out  of  which  he  may  have  thus 
been  defrauded.  Calkins  v.  Worth,  117  111. 
App.  iT&  [affirmed  in  215  111.  78,  74  N.  E.  81]. 
But  selling  the  common  property  at  two 
thousand  dollars  profit  about  a  year  after  its 
purchase  by  one  of  the  tenants  in  common  is 
no  evidence  of  fraud  in  an  action  thirteen 
years  thereafter  where  there  is  no  evidence 
that  the  other  cotenants  had  asked  to  be  per- 
mitted to  share  in  the  transaction.  Francis 
V.  Million,  80  S.  W.  486,  26  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
42. 

65.  Arkansas. —  Clements  r.  Gates,  49  Ark. 
242,  4  S.  W.  776. 

[Ill,  A] 


16     [38  Cyc] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


veyance,  both  going  into  possession,  the  relation  between  them  may  be  one  of 
equal  trust  and  confidence;  ^^  and  so,  although  they  come  to  their  titles  by  dif- 
ferent grants  they  may,  by  a  course  of  behavior,  create  the  same  confidential 
relationship  on  the  principle  that  particular  persons  in  contracts  shallnot  only 
transact  hona  fide  between  themselves,  but  shall  not  transact  Tnala  fide  in  respect 
to  other  persons,  who  stand  in  such  a  relation  to  either  as  to  be  affected  by  the 
contract  or  the  consequences  of  it."  It  has  been  held  that  the  defrauding  tenant 
in  common  cannot  rely  upon  mere  lapse  of  time  to  defeat  his  cotenants'  rights."' 
B.  Use  and  Enjoyment  of  Premises  —  1.  Right  of  Entry.  Each  tenant 
in  common  has  the  right  of  entry,  and  of  ingress  and  egress,  "^  which  right  is  several 
as  weU  as  common,  and  therefore  may  be  conferred  by  one  cotenant  without  the 
consent  of  the  others,™  and  for  which  under  proper  circumstances  a  writ  of  entry 
may  be  maintained  by  one  tenant  in  common  against  the  other.''    The  writ 


"New  York. — Van  Home  t'.  Fonda,  5  Johns. 
Ch.  388. 

Ohio. —  Lesslie  v.  Worthington,  Wright  628. 

Tennessee. —  Tisdale  v.  Tisdale,  2  Sneed 
596,  64  Am.  Dec.  775. 

England. —  In  re  Biss,   [1903]   2   Ch.  40. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  22. 

Relocation  of  mining  claim. —  Evidence  that 
one  of  the  cotenants  in  a  mining  camp  gave 
a  description  of  such  claim,  after  the  dis- 
covery of  valuable  rock  in  the  neighborhood, 
to  his  brother  who  took  the  necessary  steps 
for  the  relocation  of  the  claim  by  the  coten- 
ant in  the  name  of  his  brother,  was  held  to 
be  sufficient  to  sustain  a  finding  of  fraud. 
Yarwood  v.  Johnson,  29  Wash.  643,  70 
Pac.  123. 

66.  Harrison  v.  Winston,  2  Tenn.  Ch.  544. 

67.  Hoyt  V.  Lightbody,  98  Minn.  189,  108 
N.  W.  843,  116  Am.  St.  Eep.  389;  Free- 
man Coten.  §  151.  But  see  Shaver  v. 
Eadley,  4  Johns.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  31.0,  holding  that 
where  one  takes  possession  of  land  as  one  of 
a  number  of  devisees,  and  subsequently  learns 
that  the  devisor's  title  was  invalid,  and  takes 
a  lease  from  the  true  owner  at  an  annual 
rent,  the  lease  is  taken  free  of  any  trust  in 
favor  of  the  other  devisees. 

The  principle  is  based  upon  a  community 
of  interest  in  a  common  title,  which  creates 
such  a  relation  of  trust  and  confidence  be- 
tween the  parties  that  it  would  be  inequi- 
table to  permit  one  of  them  to  do  anything 
to  the  prejudice  of  the  other,  in  reference  to 
the  property  so  situated  (Hoyt  v.  Lightbody, 
98  Minn.  189,  108  N.  W.  843,  116  Am.  St. 
Rep.  358;  Eothwell  v.  Dewees,  2  Black  (U.  S.) 
613,  17  L.  ed.  309),  and  it  is  frequently  ap- 
plied with  the  same  force  and  reason  as  to 
persons  standing  in  a  direct  fiduciary  rela- 
tion to  others  {Davis  i,-.  Cass,  72  Miss.  985, 
18  So.  454;  Carpenter  v.  Carpenter,  131  N.  Y. 
101,  29  N.  B.  1013,  27  Am.  St.  Rep.  569; 
Knolls  V.  Barnhart,  71  IT.  Y.  474;  Allen  V. 
Arkenburgh,  2  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  452,  37  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  1032  [affirmed  in  158  N.  Y.  697,  53 
N.  E.  1122];  Cecil  r.  Clark,  47  W.  Va.  402, 
35  S.  E.  11,  8il  Am.  St.  Rep.  802,  44  W.  Va. 
65'9,  30  S.  E.  216).  In  any  event  whether 
there  is  a  fiduciary  relation  between  tenants 
in  common  or  not,  there  must  not  be  any 
studied  effort  on  the  part  of  either  to  pre- 
vent the  other  from  coming  into  knowledge 

[HI,  A] 


of   the   truth.     Matthews  V.   Bliss,   22   Pick. 
(Mass.)   48. 

68.  Pillow  t'.  Southwest  Virginia  Imp.  Co., 
92  Va.  144,  23  S.  E.  32,  53  Am.  St.  Rep.  804. 
But  see  Francis  v.  Million,  80  S.  W.  486, 
26  Ky.  L.  Rep.  42;  holding  that  the  fact  that 
a  tenant  in  remainder  purchased  land  at  a 
judicial  sale,  which  he  sold  a  year  later  for 
two  thousand  dollars,  is  not  evidence  that 
the  original  sale  was  fraudulent  as  to  the 
purchaser's  cotenants  who  did  not  ask  to  be 
permitted  to  enjoy  the  benefit  of  the  trans- 
action for  nearly  thirteen  years  thereafter. 
Compare  Kennedy  v.  Bateman,  27  Grant  Ch. 
(U.  C.)    380. 

69.  Lee  v.  Follensby,  80  Vt.  182,  67  Atl. 
197. 

An  entry  made  by  or  for  the  benefit  of  a 
stranger,  under  fraudulent  or  unfair  circum- 
stances, canot  be  supported  as  against  the 
one  truly  entitled  to  entry.  Yarwood  v. 
Johnson,  29  Wash.  643,  70  Pac.  123. 

Adverse  possession  alone  will  not  take 
away  a  right  of  entry  between  tenants  in 
common,  the  entry  being  considered  for  the 
benefit  of  all.  Midford  v.  Hardison,  7  N.  C. 
164. 

70.  Lee  v.  Follensby,  80  Vt.  182,  67  Atl. 
197. 

71.  Williams  v.  Gray,  3  Me.  207,  14  Am. 
Dec.  234,  redemption  from  tax-sale. 

Parties. — Where  suit  is  brought  against  a 
tenant  in  common  in  possession  for  the  right 
of  entry,  all  desiring  benefit  of  a,  recovery 
must  be  made  parties  thereto.  Keith  c. 
Keith,  39  Tex.  Civ.  App.  363,  87  S.  W. 
384. 

Right  of  entry  to  make  crops.— Where  the 
owner  of  land  has  contracted  with  another 
for  the  raising  of  crops  in  such  a  manner  that 
they  become  tenants  in  common  therein,  there 
is  a  qualified  interest  in  the  land  permitting 
ingress  and  egress  for  the  proper  enforce- 
ment of  the  rights  of  said  cotenants  in  the 
premises.  Delaney  v.  Root,  99  Mass.  546, 
97  Am.  Dec.  52.  But  the  right  of  entry  of 
a  cotenant  in  the  land  does  not  in  itself 
entitle  him  to  the  grain  grown  thereon  not 
then  divided  or  set  apart.  Baker  v.  Lewis 
150  Pa.  St.  251,  24  Atl.  616.  Under  the 
Alabama  code  of  1896,  section  2760',  persons 
jointly  contributing  to  the  raising  of  crops 
have  been  held  to  hold  them  by  such  a  ten- 
ancy in  common  as  to  entitle  them  to  a  lien 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc]     17 


cannot  be  maintained  as  against  a  redeeming  cotenant  in  favor  of  a  cotenant 
failing  to  make  tender  of  his  contribution  of  tlie  amount  for  which  the  land  was 
sold  for  non-payment  of  taxes,  nor  where  there  is  an  actual  ouster  of  the  other 
cotenants  or  some  act  deemed  by  law  equivalent  thereto;  '^  nor  where  the  cotenant's 
entry  is  under  claim  of  the  whole  property,"  and  a  tenant  in  common  is  not 
entitled  to  an  action  against  his  cotenant  for  entry  and  exclusive  occupation  of 
the  common  property.'* 

2.  Equal  Right  to  Use  and  Enjoyment.  Each  tenant  in  common  is  equally 
entitled  to  the  use,  benefit,  and  possession  of  the  common  property,  and  may 
exercise,  acts  of  ownership  in  regard  thereto,"  the  limitation  of  his  right  being 


for    their    respective    shares.      Hendricks    v. 
Clemmons,  147  Ala.  590,  41  So.  306'. 

73.  Watlcina  v.  Eaton,  30  Me.  529,  50  Am. 
Dec.  637 ;  Cutts  v.  King,  5  Me.  482 ;  Beall  v. 
McMenemy,  63  Nebr.  70,  88  N.  W.  134,  93 
Am.  St.  Eep.  427;  Armijo  v.  Neher,  11  N.  M. 
645,  72  Pac.  12. 

73.  Gill  V.  Fauntleroy,  8  B.  Mon.  (Ky.) 
177. 

74.  Porter  v.  Hooper,  13  Me.  25,  29  Am. 
Dec.  480. 

75.  Alabama. —  Newbold  t.  Smart,  67  Ala. 
326. 

Arkansas. —  Bertrand  v.  Taylor,  32  Ark. 
470. 

Connecticut. — Adama  v.  Manning,  31 
Conn.  5. 

Georgia. —  Haden  v.  Sims,  127  Ga.  717,  56 
S.  E.  9«9;  Daniel  v.  Daniel,  102  Ga.  181,  28 
S.  E.  167. 

Hawaii. —  Lui  v.  Kaleikini,  10  Hawaii  391; 
Mahoe  v.  Puka,  4  Hawaii  485. 

Illinois. —  Boley  v.  Banitio,  120  111.  1'9'2,  11 
N.  E.  393. 

Iowa. — Young  v.  Gammel,  4  Greene  207. 

Kentucky. —  Bell  v.  Layman,  1  T.  B.  Mon. 
39,  15  Am.  Dec.  83. 

Maine. —  Carter  v.  Bailey,  64  Me.  458,  18 
Am.  Eep.  273;  Hutchinson  v.  Chase,  39  Me. 
508,  63  Am.  Dec.  645;  Knox  V.  Silloway,  10 
Me.  201. 

Massachusetts. —  Peabody  v.  Minot,  24 
Pick.   329. 

Michigan. —  McElroy  v.  O'Callaghan,  112 
Mich.  124,  70  N.  W.  441;  Clow  f.  Plummer, 
85  Mich.  550,  48  N.  W.  795;  Wilmarth  v. 
Palmer,  34  Mich.  347;  Everts  v.  Beach,  31 
Mich.  136,  18  Am.  Rep.  169. 

Minnesota. — ■  Strong  v.  Colter,  13  Minn.  82. 

Mississippi. —  Porter  v.  Stone,  70  Miss. 
291,  12  So.  208. 

Missouri. —  Eagan  v.  McCoy,  29  Mo.  356; 
Watson  V.  Union  Eed,  etc.,  Gravel  Co.,  60 
Mo.  App.  635. 

Tffew  Jersey. —  Swallow  v.  Swallow,  31  N.  J. 
Eq.  390. 

THew  York. —  Hudson  v.  Swan,  83  N.  Y. 
552;  Osborn  v.  Schenck,  83  N.  Y.  201;  Roder- 
mund  V.  Clark,  46i  N.  Y.  354;  Simonson  v. 
Lauck,  105  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  82,  93  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  965;  McCarthy  v.  McCarthy,  40  Misc. 
180,  81  N.  Y.  Suppl.  660;  Matter  of  Lucy,  4 
Misc.  349,  24  N.  Y.  Suppl.  352;  Erwin  v. 
Olmsted,  7  Cow.  229.  See  also  Moore  v. 
Goedel,  34  N.  Y.  527  [affirming  7  Boew.  591], 
holding  that  where  a  declaration  alleges 
damages  resulting  from  an  overflow  of  water 

[2] 


caused  by  a  cotenant's  negligence  in  leaving 
a  faucet  open,  the  burden  is  upon  plaintiff  to 
prove  sucli  negligence;  because,  the  cotenant 
being  equally  entitled  to  the  possession  of  the 
common  property,  there  is  no  presumption 
that  defendant  was  in  sole  possession  at  the 
time  of  the  happening  of  the  alleged 
damages. 

Pennsylvania. —  Kline  f.  Jacobs,  68  Pa.  St. 
57;  Heil  v.  Strong,  44  Pa.  St.  264;  Under- 
wood's Estate,  5  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  621;  Norris  v. 
Gould,  15  Wkly.  Notes  Cas.  187.  See  also 
Keisel  v.  Earnest,  21  Pa.  St.  90,  holding  that 
proof  of  a  lease  to  a  tenant  in  common  for  a 
certain  year  is  no  evidence  of  a  lease  for 
the  following  year,  where  the  lessee  there- 
under was  a  tenant  in  common  and  therefore 
entitled  to  occupancy. 

Rhode  Island. — Almy  v.  Daniels,  15'  R.  I. 
312,  4  Atl.  753,  10  Atl.  654,  holding  that 
evidence  that  plaintiff  has  had  the  use  and 
benefit  of  the  common  property  fully  equal 
to  his  share  is  inadmissible,  because  he  has 
the  right  to  the  use  and  occupation  of  the 
whole  property  and  cannot  be  limited  therein 
to  any  particular  part. 

Vermont. — Avery  v.  Hall,  50  Vt.  11; 
Walker  v.  Pierce,  38  Vt.  94;  Bates  v.  Marsh, 
33  Vt.  122;  Johnson  v.  Tilden,  5  Vt.  426. 

Virginia. —  Newman  v.  Newman,  27  Gratt. 
714. 

Wisconsin. —  Higgins  v.  Eiddell,  12  Wis. 
587. 

United  States. —  Bohlen  v.  Arthurs,  115 
U.  S.  482,  6  S.  Ct.  114,  29  L.  ed.  454,  hold- 
ing that  a  tenant  in  common  cutting  and  re- 
moving timber  cannot  maintain  an  action  of 
replevin  against  such  of  his  cotenants  therein 
who  seize  and  hold  it,  because  they  have 
each  and  equally  a  right  of  possession. 

England.— Beer  v.  Beer,  12  C.  B.  60,  16 
Jur.  223,  21  L.  J.  C.  P.  124,  74  E.  C.  L.  60; 
Goodwyn  v.  Spray,  Dick.  667,  21  Eng.  Re- 
print 431;  Denys  f.  Shuckburgh,  5  Jur.  21, 
4  Y.  &  C.  Exch.  42;  Griffies  f.  Griffies,  8 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  758,  11  Wkly.  Rep.  943; 
Tyson  v.  Fairclough,  2  Sim.  &  St.  142,  25 
Rev.  Rep.  175,  1  Eng.  Ch.  142,  57  Eng.  Re- 
print 300;  Hole  v.  Thomas,  7  Ves.  Jr.  580, 
6  Rev.  Rep.  195,  32  Eng.  Reprint  237. 

Canada. —  Freeman  v.  Morton,  3  Nova 
Scotia  340;  Baker  v.  Casey,  17  Grant  Ch. 
(U.  C.)  195. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," I  62  et  seq. 

In  a  water  right,  the  right  to  a  unity  of 
possession  must  extend  to  the  right  of  user. 

[HI,  B,  2] 


18     [38  Cye.J 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


that  he  is  bound  to  so  exercise  his  rights  in  the  property  as  not  to  interfere  with 
the  rights  of  his  cotenant.'"  It  follows  that  a  tenant  in  common  of  land  has  no 
right  to  use  force  and  violence  to  exclude  his  cotenant  from  entry  on  the  common 


and  a  tenant  in  common  may  change  the 
point  of  diversion  of  water  or  his  place  of  use 
of  the  water,  if  he  does  not  infringe  the 
rights  of  his  cotenants.  Telluride  i".  Davis, 
33  Colo.  355,  80  Pac.  1051,  108  Am.  St.  Eep. 
101. 

Timber. —  In  the  absence  of  conduct  on  his 
part  amounting  to  an  ouster  or  waste  an 
occupying  cotenant  is  not  chargeable  with 
the  value  of  timber  cut  by  him  from  the  com- 
mon property  during  his  occupation.  Nevels 
V.  Kentucky  Lumber  Co.,  108  Ky.  550,  56 
S.  W.  96&,  22  Ky.  L.  Rep.  247,  94  Am.  St. 
Rep.  388,  49'  L.  R.  A.  416;  Strong  f.  Richard- 
son, 19  Vt.  194;  Munsie  v.  Lindsay,  10  Ont. 
Pr.  173;  Rice  v.  George,  20  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.) 
221 ;  Griffin  v.  Patterson,  45  U.  C.  Q.  B.  536, 
591.  But  see  Gillum  f.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
5  Tex.  Civ.  App.  338,  23  S.  W.  717.  So  where 
a  life-owner  of  common  land  cuts  and  uses  a 
few  hundred  dollars'  worth  of  timber  for  the 
use  of  a  sawmill  owned  by  the  tenants  in 
common,  but  leaving  an  abundance  of  tim- 
ber for  all  purposes.  Dodd  v.  Watson,  57 
N.  C.  48,  72  Am.  Dec.  577.  See  also  Adam- 
son  r.  Adamson,  17  Ont.  407.  A  tenant  in 
common  may  sell  marketable  timber  growing 
on  the  common  land  if  such  action  does  not 
amount  to  waste.  The  proper  remedy  of  his 
cotenants  may  be  to  compel  an  accounting. 
Hodges  V.  Heal,  80  Me.  281,  14  Atl.  11,  6 
Am.  St.  Rep.  199;  Kimball  v.  Sumner,  62 
Me.  305;  Bradley  f.  Boynton,  22  Me.  287, 
39  Am.  Dec.  582;  Mee  v.  Benedict,  98  Mich. 
260,  57  N.  W.  175,  39  Am.  St.  Rep.  543,  22 
L.  R.  A.  641;  Gillum  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  622,  23  S.  W.  716. 

Demand  for  possession  not  notice  to  quit. 
— A  demand  by  a  tenant  in  common  upon 
his  cotenant  to  be  let  into  possession  is  not 
a  notice  to  quit  in  the  absence  of  statute  to 
the  contrary.  Carpentier  f.  Webster,  27  Cal. 
524. 

Personal  property. —  The  general  rule  is 
that  each  cotenant  is  equally  entitled  to 
possession  of  personal  property,  and  that  one 
in  actual  possession  thereof  had  a  right  to 
maintain  such  possession  against  his  coten- 
ants, unless  otherwise  provided  by  statute. 
Blewett  t".  Coleman,  40  Pa.  St.  45  (holding 
that  a  tenant  in  common  has  no  right  to 
seize  ores  mined  by  the  lessee  of  his  coten- 
ant) ;  Earll  t.  Stumpf,  56  Wis.  50,  13  N.  W. 
701.  See  Penn  v.  Butler,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
10,930,  4  Dall.  354  (where  it  was  held  that 
the  survivor  of  joint  payees  of  bonds  was, 
on  the  death  of  one  of  said  payees,  entitled 
to  retain  possession  thereof  as  against  the 
executor  of  said  deceased)  ;  Baker  c.  Casey, 
17  Grant  Ch.  (U.  0.)  195  (where  an  injunc- 
tion restraining  the  proceedings  of  part- 
owners  of  a  schooner  in  sole  possession  from 
excluding  their  cotenant  therefrom  was  re- 
fused where  there  was  no  allegation  that 
there  had  been  any  dispute  as  to  the  em- 
ployment of  the  vessel).  The  only  remedy 
of     the     cotenants     to     acquire     possession 

[III,  B,  2] 


is  to  take  possession  when  a  fit  op- 
portunity presents  itself  (Southworth  v. 
Smith,  27  Conn.  355,  71  Am.  Dec.  72; 
Carter  v.  Bailey,  64  Me.  548,  18  Am.  Rep. 
273;  Estey  v.  Boardman,  61  Me.  595.  See 
Tallman  v.  Barnes,  54  Wis.  181,  11  N.  W. 
478;  Fennings  k.  Grenville,  1  Taunt.  241; 
Freeman  v.  Morton,  3  Nova  Scotia  340)  ;  or 
by  partition  (Thompson  v.  Silverthorne,  142 
N.  C.  12,  54  S.  E.  782,  115  Am.  St.  Eep.  727; 
Powell  f.  Hill,  64  N.  C.  169).  The  tenants 
in  common  in  possession  may  lawfully  con- 
trol the  property,  and  may  employ  another 
to  care  for  the  property  who  may  be  entitled 
to  a  lien  thereon  dependent  on  possession, 
for  pay  for  his  services.  Williamson  v. 
Moore,   10  Ida.  749,  80  Pac.  227. 

76.  Byara  v.  Bickford,  140  Mass.  31,  2 
N.  E.  687  (holding  that  one  tenant  in 
common  may,  without  becoming  liable 
in  trespass,  remove  a  building  erected 
by  his  cotenants  without  his  consent  on 
the  common  property,  which  erection  ex- 
cludes him  from  the  portion  of  the  common 
property  on  which  said  building  is  erected)  ; 
Adams  f.  Briggs  Iron  Co.,  7  Cush.  (Mass.) 
361;  Newton  v.  Newton,  17  Pick.  (Mass.) 
201  (holding  that  a  cotenant  may  not 
prevent  his  cotenant  from  sending  a 
servant  into  a  common  well  to  clean 
it,  even  though  the  well  does  not  re- 
quire cleaning)  ;  Country  Club  Land  Assoc. 
f.  Lohbauer,  187  N.  Y.  106,  79  N.  E.  844 
[affirming  110  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  875,  97  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  11]  ;  Beach  f.  Child,  13  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
343;  Woods  v.  Early,  95  Va.  307,  28  8.  E. 
374,  holding  that  a  tenant  in  common  in  a 
building  cannot  erect  a  wall  along  the  middle 
of  a  hall,  which  is  the  only  means  of  access 
to  two  offices,  if  the  erection  interferes  with 
the  rights  of  his  cotenants. 

The  owner  of  an  undivided  interest  in  a 
mining  claim  has  no  right  to  use  any  part 
thereof  to  the  exclusion  of  his  cotenants 
therein.  Laesch  r.  Morton,  38  Colo.  171,  87 
Pac.  1081;  Mills  v.  Hart,  24  Colo.  505,  52 
Pac.  680,  65  Am.  St.  Rep.  241;  Daniel  v. 
Daniel,  102  Ga.  181,  28  S.  E.  167;  Williams 
!■.  Rogers,  110  Mich.  418,  68  N.  W.  240; 
Butte,  etc.,  Consol.  Min.  Co.  v.  Montana  Ore 
Purchasing  Co.,  (Mont.  1898)  55  Pac.  112; 
Morrison  v.  Morrison,  122  N.  C.  598,  29  S.  E. 
901 ;  Sweeney  v.  Hanley,  126  Fed.  97,  61 
C.  C.  A.  153.  And  one  tenant  in  common  has 
no  right  to  seize  to  his  own  uses  ores  mined 
by  a  lessee  of  his  cotenant.  Blewett  v.  Cole- 
man, 40  Pa.  St.  45.  Upon  judicial  sale  of  the 
undivided  portion  of  a  mining  claim  the  sher- 
iff cannot  legally  eject  defendants  if  they  sub- 
mit to  the  vendor's  common  occupancy  of 
the  property.  Bullion  Min.  Co.  v.  Croesus 
Gold,  etc.,  Min.  Co.,  2  Nev.  168,  90  Am  Dee 
526. 

Water  rights. — A  tenant  in  common  has 
no  right,  by  means  of  a  dam  erected  on  other 
lands  of  which  he  is  sole  seized,  to  flow  the 
land  owned  in  common  without  the  consent 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[88  Cye.J     19 


property,  even  though  such  entry  be  with  the  purpose  of  doing  an  act  that  may 
be  tortious;  "  and  neither  an  action  at  law  nor  in  equity  can  ordinarily  be  main- 
tained between  cotenants  for  the  exclusive  possession  of  the  common  property 
or  for  the  sole  enjoyment  of  the  profits  thereof,  even  though  the  one  in  possession 
refuses  to  deliver  sole  possession  to  his  cotenant,  or  defendant  forcibly  took  it 
from  plaintiff's  possession;  if  a  tenant  in  common  desires  to  have  sole  and  exclusive 
possession  of  his  interest  in  the  common  property  he  can  only  seek  his  remedy 
in  partition."  If  a  tenant  in  common  recovers  or  holds  sole  possession  because 
of  some  necessary  and  proper  expenditure  for  the  common  benefit  he  may  be 
entitled  to  sole  possession  until  after  contribution,"  and  it  is  competent  for 
tenants  in  common  to  agree  among  themselves  that  one  of  them  shall  have  sole 
or  exclusive  possession  of  the  common  property,  and  such  an  agreement  is  valid 
and  enforceable.'"    There  is  no  liability  on  the  part  of  a  cotenant  to  his  fellows 


of  his  cotenants  and  to  their  injury;  nor  can 
he,  by  grant  of  the  land  of  which  he  is  so 
sole  seized,  convey  such  right  of  flowage  to 
his  grantee.  Hutchinson  «.  Chase,  39  Me. 
508,  63  Am.  Dec.  645;  Great  Falls  Co.  t. 
Worster,  15  N.  H.  412;  Odiorne  v.  Lyford,  9 
N.  H.  502,  32  Am.  Dec.  387.  He  may  not, 
to  the  injury  of  his  cotenants  therein,  divert 
the  water  from  an  aqueduct  or  a  mill  owned 
in  common  (Pillsbury  t.  Moore,  44  Me. 
154,  69  Am.  Dec.  91;  Blanchard  t.  Baker,  8 
Me.  253,  23  Am.  Dec.  504;  McLellan  v.  Jen- 
ness,  43  Vt.  183,  5  Am.  Eep.  270),  nor  may 
he  stop  up  a  ditch  owned  in  common  arid 
thereby  overflow  his  cotenants'  land;  even 
though  the  damaged  parties  fail  to  repair  the 
ditch,  the  duty  to  repair  being  equal  between 
the  cotenants  (Adams  f.  Manning,  51  Conn. 
5;  Moss  V.  Rose,  27  Oreg.  595,  41  Pac.  666, 
50  Am.  St.  Rep.  743'),  nor  build  a  pier  which 
interferes  with  his  cotenants  (Beach  v. 
Child,  13  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  343).  Interference 
with  the  cotenant's  right  in  a  salmon  fishery 
is  ground  for  an  action  on  the  case  between 
them.  Duncan  v.  Sylvester,  24  Me.  482,  41 
Am.  Dec.  400,  holding,  however,  that  tres- 
pass quare  clauaum  was  not  maintainable  be- 
tween tenants  in  common  of  a  fishery  where 
one  of  them  cut  away  and  set  adrift  the  fish- 
ing nets  of  the  other.  But  a  cotenant  may 
change  the  place  of  use  of  the  water  or  the 
point  of  diversion  thereof  if  it  does  not  dam- 
age or  infringe  the  rights  of  his  coSwners 
(Telluride  v.  Davis,  33  Colo.  355,  80  Pac.  1051, 
108  Am.  St.  Rep.  101;  Moflfett  v.  Brewer,  1 
Greene  ( Iowa )  348 );  and  a  tenant  in  common 
in  water  rights  of  a  ditch  has  the  right,  in 
the  absence  of  contractual  or  statutory  limi- 
tation, to  recapture  and  use  his  proportion  of 
the  water  for  any  lawful  purposes,  after  the 
original  uses  of  the  ditch  have  been  aban- 
doned, and  its  flow  turned  into  another  stream 
(Meagher  v.  Hardenbrook,  11  Mont.  385,  28 
Pac.  451).  If  tenants  in  common  convey  a 
mill  and  water  privilege  and  in  said  convey- 
ance give  to  the  grantee  thereunder  the  right 
and  privilege  to  flow  any  land  owned  by 
■  them,  the  subsequent  grantees  of  said  land 
holding  under  them  cannot  complain  against 
such  flowage.  Howard  v.  Bates,  8  Meto. 
(Mass.)  484. 

77.  Com.  v.  Lakeman,  4  Cush.  (Mass.) 
597;  Com.  v.  Oliver,  2  Pars.  Bq.  Cas.  (Pa.) 
420. 


78.  Alabama. —  Smith  v.  Rice,  56  Ala.  417. 
California. —  Balch  v.  Jones,  61  Cal.  234. 
Georgia. —  Thompson   V.   Sanders,    113   Ga. 

1024,  39  S.  E.  419. 

Iowa. —  Stern  v.  Selleck,  136  Iowa  291,  111 
N.  W.  451;  Conover  v.  Earl,  26  Iowa  167. 

Kentucky. —  Chinn  v.  Respass,  1  T.  B.  Mon. 
25;  Lewis  v.  Night,  3  Litt.  223;  Carlyle  v. 
Patterson,  3  Bibb  93. 

Mairae.— Carter  v.  Bailey,  64  Me.  458,  18 
Am.  Eep.  273;  Witham  v.  Witham,  57  Me. 
447,  99  Am.  Dec.  787. 

Michigan. —  McElroy  v.  O'Callaghan,  112 
Mich.  124,  70  N.  W.  441. 

Minnesota. —  Person  f.  Wilson,  25  Minn. 
189. 

Missouri. —  Miller  «.  Crigler,  83  Mo.  App. 
395 ;  Kelley  v.  Vandiver,  75  Mo.  App.  435 ; 
Sharp  V.  Benoist,  7  Mo.  App.  534. 

Montana. —  Harrigan  v.  Lynch,  21  Mont. 
36,  52  Pac.  642 ;  Sharp  v.  Benoist,  7  Mo.  App. 
534. 

'New  Hampshire. —  Pickering  v.  Moore,  67 
N.  H.  533,  32  Atl.  828,  68  Am.  St.  Rep.  695, 
31  L.  R.  A.  698. 

New  York. —  Osborn  v.  Schenck,  83  N.  Y. 
201 ;  Rodermund  v.  Clark,  46  N.  Y.  354 ;  Fos- 
gate  V.  Herkimer  Mfg.,  etc.,  Co.,  12  Barb.  352 
Xafjlrming  9  Barb.  287,  and  affirmed  in  12 
N.  Y.  580];  Beecher  v.  Bennett,  11  Barb. 
374;  Tyler  v.  Taylor,  8  Barb.  585;  Farr  r. 
Smith,  9  Wend.  338,  24  Am.  Dec.  162;  St. 
John  V.  Standring,  2  Johns.  468. 

North  Carolina. —  Thompson  v.  Silverthorne, 
142  K.  C.  12,  54  S.  E.  782,  115  Am.  St.  Rep. 
727;  Powell  v.  Hill,  64  N.  C.  169;  Cain  v. 
Wright,  50  N.  C.  282,  72  Am.  Dec.  551;  Bon- 
ner i;.  Latham,  23  N.  C.  271. 

Pennsylvania. —  Heller  V.  Hufsmith,  102 
Pa.  St.  533. 

Texas. —  Davidson  v.  Wallingford,  88  Tex. 
619,  32  S.  W.  1030. 

Vermont. —  Deavitt  v.  Ring,  73  Vt.  298,  50 
Atl.  1066;  Booth  v.  Adams,  11  Vt.  156,  34 
Am.  Dec.  680;  Tubbs  v.  Richardson,  6  Vt. 
442,  27  Am.  Dec.  570. 

Compare  Cole  v.  Broom,  Dudley  (S.  C.)   7. 

79.  Blodgett  v.  Hildreth,  8  Allen  (Mass.) 
186;  Gregg  v.  Patterson,  9  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.) 
197.  But  see  Young  v.  Gammel,  4  Greene 
(Iowa)  20T,  holding  otherwise  where  the  non- 
contributing  cotenant  was  an  infant. 

80.  Hudson  v.  Swan,  7  Abb.  N".  Cas. 
(N.  Y.)  324  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  83 

[III,  B,  2] 


20     [38  CycJ 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


for  natural  wear  and  tear  resulting  from  lapse  of  time  and  proper  use  of  the  common 
property;  there  is  liability  only  for  damages  in  tort  arising  from  negligence,  mis- 
use, or  abuse  thereof; ''  in  case  of  loss  of  the  common  property  following  a  wrongful 
detention  thereof  by  one  of  the  tenants  in  common  therein,  but  without  negligence 
or  other  wrong-doing  on  the  part  of  the  tenant  in  common  so  wrongfully  detaining 
the  common  property,  his  cotenant  therein  is  entitled  to  some,  if  no  more  than 
nominal  damages,  but  not  to  the  extent  of  the  full  value  of  his  share. '^  Statutes 
are  liberally  construed  to  further  the  rights  of  cotenants  in  the  enjoyment  of  the 
common  property.*^ 

C.  Possession  and  Seizin  —  1.  Right  to  Possession.  A  tenant  in  common 
has  an  interest  in  the  possession  of  every  part  of  the  property,^*  and  from  the 
nature  of  the  estate  must  necessarily  be  in  possession  of  the  whole,^^  and  a  tenant 


N.  Y.  552]  (where  the  owners  of  a  trotting 
horse  agreed  that  one  of  their  number  should 
retain  possession  of  such  horse  for  the  pur- 
pose of  training  and  driving  it,  and  that  he 
should  have  a  lien  thereon  for  his  expenses)  ; 
Corbett  f.  Lewis,  53  Pa.  St.  322  (where  com- 
mon owners  of  personal  property  agreed  that 
if  some  of  them  would  furnish  supplies  for 
manufacture  they  should  have  exclusive  sale 
of  the  manufactured  article)  ;  Longwell  f. 
Bentley,  3  Grant    (Pa.)    177. 

Such  a  permissive  holding  is  not  adverse. 
Rhea  v.  Craig,  141  N.  C.  602,  54  S.  E.  408.  And 
see  in/ro,  III,  C,  3,  b.  This  rule  applies  to  re- 
alty as  well  as  to  personalty,  and  the  relation 
of  the  one  holding  possession  under  the  agree- 
ment toward  his  cotenants  is  the  same  as  that 
of  any  stranger  to  them  thus  holding  except 
as  it  may,  in  rare  eases,  be  modified  by  the  re- 
lationship of  cotenancy.  Harry  v.  Harry, 
127  Ind.  91,  26  N.  E.  562;  Calvert  f.  Pewee 
Valley,  25  S.  W.  5,  15  Ky.  L.  Rep.  644; 
O'Connor  f.  Delaney,  53  Minn.  247,  54  N.  W. 
1108,  39  Am.  St.  Rep.  601;  Early  f.  Friend, 
16  Gratt.  (Va.)  21,  78  Am.  Dec.  649.  The 
cotenant  cannot  while  holding  possession  un- 
der contract  from  the  others  litigate  his  right 
of  possession  by  virtue  of  the  cotenancy  as 
contradistinguished  from  his  right  of  posses- 
sion under  the  contract.  Hershey  v.  Clark, 
27  Ark.  527. 

81.  Trammell  v.  McDade,  29  Tex.  360; 
Bodkin  f.  Arnold,  48  W.  Va.  108,  35  S.  E. 
880.  See  also  Hall  v.  Fisher,  20  Barb. 
(N.  y.)   441. 

82.  Clow  V.  Plummer,  85  Mich.  550,  48 
N.  W.  795 ;  Shearin  v.  Riggsby,  97  N.  C.  216, 
1  S.  E.  770. 

83.  California. — Wagoner  v.  Silva,  139  Cal. 
559,  73  Pac.  433;  Smith  v.  Stearns  Rancho 
Co.,  129  Cal.  58,  61  Pac.  662;  Carpentier  v. 
Mitchell,  29  Cal.  330. 

Massachusetts. —  Hastings  v.  Hastings,  110 
Mass.  280. 

Montana. —  Butte,  etc.,  Conaol.  Min.  Co.  v. 
Montana  Ore  Purchasing  Co.,  25  Mont.  41, 
63  Pac.  825. 

South  Carolina. —  Bannister  v.  Bull,  16 
S.  C.  220. 

South  Dakota. —  Mather  v.  Dunn,  11  S.  D. 
196,  76  N.  W.  922,  74  Am.  St.  Rep.  786. 

Virginia. — Allen  f.  Gibson,  4  Rand.  468. 

84.  California. —  Hart  c.  Robertson,  21  Cal. 
346;  Touchard  v.  Crow,  20  Cal.  150,  81  Am. 
Dec.  108;   Covillaud  v.  Tanner,  7  Cal.  38. 

[Ill,  B,  2] 


Connecticut. —  Robinson  v.  Roberts,  31 
Conn.  145;  Smith  v.  Starkweather,  5  Day 
207;  Bush  v.  Bradley,  4  Day  298;  Hillhouse 
V.  Mix,  1  Root  246,  1  Am.  Dec.  41. 

Georgia. —  Greenfield  r.  Mclntyre,  112  Ga. 
691,  38  S.  E.  44;  Sanford  v.  Sanford,  58  Ga. 
259. 

Indiana. —  Chesround  v.  Cunningham,  3 
Blackf.  82. 

Kentucky. —  Craig  e.  Taylor,  6  B.  Mon. 
457;  King  v.  Bullock,  9  Dana  41. 

Massachusetts. —  Butrick  v.  Tilton,  141 
Mass.  93,  6  N.  E.  563. 

Minnesota. —  Sherin  v.  Larson,  28  Minn. 
623,  11  N.  W.  70. 

Nevada. —  Brown  v.  Warren,  16  Nev.  228. 

New  Mexico. —  De  Bergere  v.  Chaves,  (1908) 
93  Pac.  762. 

North  Carolina. — ^Yancey  v.  Greenlee,  90 
N.  C.  317. 

North  Dakota. —  Griswold  v.  Minneapolis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  N.  D.  435.,  97  N.  W.  538,  102 
Am.  St.  Rep.  572. 

South  Carolina. —  Bannister  v.  Bull,  16 
S.  C.  220. 

Tennessee. —  Jones  v.  Phillips,  10  Heisk. 
562;  Hammett  v.  Blount,  1  Swan  385;  Tur- 
ner V.  Lumbrick,  Meigs  7. 

Vermont. —  Johnson  v.  Tilden,  5  Vt.  426- 
Wiswell  V.  Wilkins,  4  Vt.  137. 

Virginia. — Allen  v.  Gibson,  4  R^nd.  468. 

United  States. —  Hardy  v.  Johnson,  1  Wall 
371,  17  L.  ed.  502;  Whittle  l\  Bookwalter,  55 
Fed.  919 ;  French  v.  Edwards,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,098,  5  Sawy.  266,  7  Reporter  68;  LeFrano 
V.  Richmond,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,209,  5  Sawv 
601.  'J 

The  dispossession  of  a  tenant  in  common 
by  a  cotenant,  by  force  or  fraud,  cannot  aflFect 
the  dispossessed  party's  rights  as  between  the 
cotenants  in  the  premises.  Fisher  v  Sey- 
mour, 23  Colo.  542,  49  Pac.  30;  Brown  v 
Hogle,  30  111.  11&;  Warren  v.  Henshaw,  2  Aik' 
(Vt.)  141.  But  the  defrauded  cotenant  is 
said  to  have  no  remedy  excepting  in  equity 
Weakly  f.  Hall,  13  Ohio  167,  42  Am.  Dec. 
194. 

Each  cotenant  may  have  his  several  action 
of  trespass  quare  against  a  stranger.  Long- 
fellow V.  Quimby,  29  Me.  196,  48  Am.  Deo. 
525. 

85.  California.—  Ord  v.  Chester,  18  Oal  77 

Kentucky.— GosBom  v.  Donaldson,  18  b" 
Mon.  230,  68  Am.  Dec.  723. 

Maine. —  Knox  v.  Silloway,  10  Me.  201. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  CycJ    21 


in  common  is  entitled  to  possession  of  the  common  property  as  against  all  the 
world  save  his  cotenants; '°  and  no  one  can  complain  of  the  exclusive  use  of  the 
common  property  by  one  tenant  in  common  except  his  cotenant." 

2.  Possession  of  One  as  Possession  of  All.  The  ertry  and  possession  of  one 
tenant  in  common  is  presumed  to  be  for  the  benefit  of  all;  and  wUl,  in  the  absence 
oi  statute  to  the  contrary,  be  regarded  as  the  possession  of  all  the  cotenants,  until 
rendered  adverse  by  some  act  or  declaration  by  him  repudiating  their  interest 
in  the  property,**  and  statutes  that  might  be  construed  against  such  presumption 


2V©ip  York. —  Country  Club  Land  Assoc.  ii. 
Lohbauer,  187  N.  Y.  106,  79  N.  E.  844 
[affirming  110  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  875,  97  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  11]. 

Rhode  Island. — Almy  v.  Daniels,  15  R.  I. 
312,  4  Atl.  753,  10  Atl.  654. 

A  cotenant  cannot  be  ejected  for  occupying 
more  than  what  would  be  his  share  of  the 
premises  on  partition.  Daniel  v.  Daniel,  102 
Ga.  181,  28  S.  B.  167. 

86.  Alabama. —  Moore  v.  Walker,  124  Ala. 
199,  26  So.  984;  Smith  v.  Rice,  56  Ala. 
417. 

Arkansas. —  Burgett  V.  Williford,  56  Ark. 
187,  19  S.  W.  750,  35  Am.  St.  Rep.  96. 

California. — Wittenbreck  v.  Wheadon,  128 
Gal.  150,  60  Pac.  664,  79  Am.  St.  Rep.  32; 
Williams  v.  Sutton,  43  Cal.  65;  Hart  v.  Rob- 
ertson, 21  Cal.  346;  Stark  v.  Barrett,  15  Cal. 
361;  Lick  V.  O'Donnell,  3  Cal.  5«',  58  Am. 
Dec.  383. 

Colorado. — Weese  v.  Barker,  7  Colo.  178,  2 
Pac.  919. 

Iowa. —  Howe  v.  Howe,  90  Iowa  582,  58 
N.  W.  908. 

Kentucky. — Chinn  v.  Respass,  1  T.  B.  Mon. 
25;  Lewis  V.  Night,  3  Litt.  223;  Carlyle  v. 
Patterson,  3  Bibb  93. 

Louisiana. —  Moreira  v.  Schwan,  113  La. 
643,  37  So.  542. 

Massachusetts. —  King  v.  Dickerman,  77 
Mass.  480;  Rawson  v.  Morse,  4  Pick.  127. 

Minnesota. —  Strong  f.  Colter,  13  Minn.  82. 

Nevada. —  Hoopes  v.  Meyer,  1  Nev.  433. 

New  York. —  Moore  v.  Goedel,  34  N.  Y. 
527  [affirming  7  Bosw.  591] ;  Erwin  V.  Olm- 
sted, 7  Cow.  229. 

North  Carolina. —  Cain  v.  Wright,  50  N.  C. 
282,  72  Am.  Dec.  551;  Bonner  v.  Latham,  23 
N.  C.  271. 

Pennsylvania. —  Orbin  v.  Stevens,  13  Pa. 
Super.  Ct.  591. 

South  Carolina. —  Martin  v.  Quattlebam,  3 
McCord  205. 

Texas. —  McGrady  v.  McRae,  1  Tex.  App. 
Civ.  Cas.  §  1036. 

Wisconsin. —  Earll  v.  Stumpf,  56  Wis.  50, 
13  N.  W.  701. 

As  against  trespasser. —  One  of  several 
tenants  in  common  of  land  is  entitled  to  pos- 
session of  the  whole  tract  as  against  a  mere 
trespasser.  Winborne  v.  Elizabeth  City  Lum- 
ber Co.,  130  N.  C.  32,  40  S.  E.  825;  Thames 
V.  Jones,  97  N.  C.  121,  1  S.  E.  692 ;  Lafoon  v. 
Shearin,  95  N".  C.  391 ;  Yancey  v.  Greenlee,  90 
N.  C.  317;  Green  v.  Graham,  5  Ohio  264; 
Mather  1}.  Dunn,  11  S.  D.  196,  76  N.  W.  922, 
74  Am.  St.  Rep.  788;  Wright  v.  Dunn,  73 
Tex.  293,  11  S.  W.  330;  Thompson  v.  Johnson, 
(Tex.    Civ.    App.     1900)     56     S.    W.     591. 


Where  one  cotenant  maintains  an  action 
for  possession  against  a  trespasser,  the  re- 
covery inures  to  the  benefit  of  all  the  coten- 
ants. Newman  v.  State  Bank,  80  Cal.  368, 
22  Pac.  261,  13  Am.  St.  Rep.  169,  5  L.  R.  A. 
467;  Keith  v.  Keith,  39  Tex.  Civ.  App.  363, 
87  S.  W.  384. 

87.  Heilbron  v.  St.  Louis  Southwestern  R. 
Co.,   (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1908)   113  S.  W.  610. 

88.  Alabama. —  liong  v.  Grant,  163  Ala. 
507,  50  So.  914;  Sumner  v.  Hill,  157  Ala.  230, 
47  So.  565;  Inglis  v.  Webb,  117  Ala.  387,  23 
So.  125;  Williams  v.  Avery,  38  Ala.  115.  But 
see  Brown  v.  Floyd,  163  Ala.  317,  50  So.  995, 
holding  that  the  fact  that  possession  of  one 
tenant  in  common  is  the  possession  of  all  is 
not  a  defense  for  trespass  by  one  tenant  in 
common  against  the  possession  and  person 
of  another,  holding  the  actual  possession  and 
claiming  the  entire  property. 

California. —  McNeil  v.  San  Francisco  First 
Cong.  Soc,  66  Cal.  105,  4  Pac.  1096;  Aguirre 
V.  Alexander,  58  Cal.  217;  McCauley  v.  Har- 
vey, 49  Cal.  497;  Varni  v.  Devoto,  10  Cal. 
App.  304,  101  Pac.  934. 

Georgia. —  Thompson  v.  Sanders,  113  Ga. 
1024,  39  S.  E.  419. 

Illinois. —  Blackaby  v.  Blackaby,  185  111. 
94,  56  N.  E.  1053;  Ball  v.  Palmer,  81  111. 
370  (holding  that  a  coheir  residing  with  the 
ancestor  at  the  time  of  his  death  is  pre- 
sumed to  hold  for  the  benefit  of  the  other 
coheirs) ;  Swartwout  v.  Evans,  37  111.  442 ; 
Brown  v.  Graham,  24  111.  628  (holding  that 
therefore  where  one  tenant  in  common  is  in 
possession  of  indivisible  personal  property, 
and  his  cotenant  out  of  possession  sells  his 
interest,  the  possession  of  the  one  in  posses- 
sion Tbecomes  that  of  the  purchaser). 

Indiana. —  Elliott  v.  Frakes,  90  Ind.  389; 
Patterson  v.  Nixon,  79  Ind.  251 ;  Nicholson 
t".  Caress,  76  Ind.  24;  Manchester  f.  Dod- 
dridge, 3  Ind.  360. 

Iowa. —  Weare  v.  Van  Meter,  42  Iowa  128, 
20  Am.  Rep.  616. 

Kansas. —  Schoonover  v.  Tyner,  72  Kan. 
475,  84  Pac.  124. 

Kentucky. —  Vermillion  v.  Nickell,  (1908) 
114  S.  W.  270;  Bloom  v.  Sawyer,  12V  Ky. 
308,  89  S.  W.  204,  28  Ky.  L.  Rep.  349 ;  Gill 
V.  Fauntleroy,  8  B.  Mon.  177;  Taylor  c. 
Cox,  2  B.  Mon.  429;  Poage  f.  Chinn,  4  Dana 
50. 

Maine. —  Thornton  v.  York  Bank,  45  Me. 
158;  Bird  v.  Bird,  40  Me.  398.  Compare 
Gilman  v.  Stetson,  18  Me.  428. 

Massachusetts. — Whiting  v.  Dewey,  15 
Pick.  428;  Shumway  v.  Holbrook,  1  Pick. 
114,  11  Am.  Dec.  153;  Brown  v.  Wood,  17 
Mass.  68;  Barnard  v.  Pope,  14  Mass.  434,  7 

[III,  C,  2] 


22     [38  Cye.j 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


have  been  held  to  have  no  operation  as  between  tenants  in  common;  *'  and  so 


Am.  Dec.  225.    But  see  Oummings  v.  Wymaji, 
10  Mass.  464. 

Michigan. —  Nowlen  v.  Hall,  128  Mich.  274, 
87  N.  W.  222. 

Minnesota. —  Lindley  v.  Groff,  37  Minn. 
338,  34  N.  W.  26;  Strong  v.  Colter,  13  Minn. 
82. 

Mississippi. —  Her  v.  Kouth,  3  How.  276. 

Missouri. —  Chapman  v.  Kulbnan,  191  Mo. 
237,  89  S.  W.  924;  Coberly  v.  Coberly,  189 
Mo.  1,  87  S.  W.  957;  Stevens  v.  Martin,  168 
Mo.  407,  68  S.  W.  347 ;  Whitaker  v.  Whitaker, 
157  Mo.  342,  58  S.  W.  5;  Benoist  v.  Roths- 
child, 145  Mo.  399,  46  S.  W.  1081;  Hutson 
V.  Hutson,  139  Mo.  229,  40  S.  W.  886;  Colvin 
V.  Hauenstein,  110  Mo.  575,  19  S.  W.  948; 
Bernecker  v.  Miller,  40  Mo.  473,  93  Am.  Dec. 
309  (holding  that  if  any  of  a  number  of  co- 
tenants,  less  than  the  whole,  be  turned  out 
of  possession,  and  the  other  thereof  still  re- 
main in  possession,  such  possession  continues 
for  the  benefit  of  all  of  said  cotenants)  ; 
Eozier  v.  Griffith,  31  Mo.  171. 

Montana. —  Southmayd  v.  Southmayd,  4 
Mont.  100,  5  Pac.  318. 

Neio  Hampshire. —  Blake  v.  Milliken,  14 
N.  H.  213. 

New  York. —  Allen  v.  Arkenburgh,  2  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  452,  37  N.  Y.  Suppl.  1032;  Beal  v. 
Miller,  3  Thomps.  &  C.  564;  Constantine  v. 
Van  Winkle,  6  Hill  177. 

North  Carolina. —  Mott  r.  Carolina  Land, 
etc.,  Co.,  146  N.  C.  525,  60  S.  E.  423;  Dob- 
bins V.  Dobbins,  141  N.  C.  210,  53  S.  E.  870, 
115  Am.  St.  Eep.  682;  Hardee  v.  Weathing- 
ton,  130  N.  C.  91,  40  S.  E.  855;  Conkey  v. 
John  L.  Roper  Lumber  Co.,  126  N.  C.  499, 
36  S.  E.  42;  Tharpe  v.  Holcomb,  126  N.  C. 
365,  35  S.  E.  608;  Covington  v.  Stewart,  77 
N.  C.  148;  Linker  r.  Benson,  67  N.  C.  150; 
Saunders  v.  Gatlin,  21  N.  C.  86;  Cloud  v. 
Well,  15  N.  C.  290,  25  Am.  Dec.  711. 

Ohio. —  Hogg  V.  Beerman,  41  Ohio  St.  81, 
52  Am.  Rep.  71. 

Oregon. —  Moss  v.  Rose,  27  Oreg.  595,  41 
Pac.  666,  50  Am.  St.  Rep.  743. 

Pennsylvamia. —  Stull  v.  StuU,  197  Pa.  St. 
243,  47  Atl.  240;  Hart  v.  Gregg,  10  Watts 
185,  36  Am.  Dec.  166  (holding  that  where 
possession  by  one  coheir  continued  for 
twenty-one  years,  such  possession  would  not 
bar  the  other  heirs  in  the  absence  of  an  ad- 
verse holding) ;  Beam  v.  Gardner,  18  Pa. 
Super.  Ct.  245. 

Philippine. —  Wolfson  v.  Reyes,  8  Philip- 
pine 364. 

Porto  Rico. —  Ortiz  de  Rodriguez  v.  Vivoni, 
1  Porto  Rico  Fed.  487 ;  Soriano  v.  Arrese,  1 
Porto  Rico  Fed.  198. 

South  Carolina. —  Richardson  v.  Day,  20 
S.  C.  412;  Cole  v.  Broom,  Dudley  7;  Villard 
r.  Robert,  1  Strobh.  Eq.  393 ;  Gray  v.  Givens, 
Riley  Eq.  41,  2  Hill  Eq.  511. 

Tennessee. —  Marr  v.  Gilliam,  1  Coldw.  488; 
Elliott  V.  Holder,  3  Head  6'98;  Cunningham 
V.  Roberson,  1  Swan  138. 

rexos.— Myers  v.  Frey,  102  Tex.  527,  119 
S.  W.  1142  [affirming  (Civ.  App.  1908)  113 
S.  W.  592]  ;  Terrell  v.  Martin,  64  Tex.  121 ; 

[III.  C,  2] 


Alexander  i;.  Kennedy,  19  Tex.  488,  70  Am. 
Dec.  358;  Franks  v.  Hancock,  1  Tex.  Unrep. 
Cas.  554;  Garcia  v.  lUg,  14  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
482,  37  S.  W.  471;  Noble  v.  Hill,  8  Tax. 
Civ.  App.   171,  27  S.  W.  756. 

Vermont. — Avery  v.  Hall,  50  Vt.  11;  Howe 
Scale  Co.  v.  Terry,  47  Vt.  109;  Buckmaster 
V.  N«edham,  22  Vt.  617;  Johnson  v.  Tilden, 
5  Vt.  426. 

Washington. —  Cedar  Canyon  Consol.  Min. 
Co.  V.  Yarwood,  27  Wash.  271,  67  Pac.  749; 
91  Am.  St.  Rep.  841. 

West  Virginia. —  Parker  v.  Brast,  45 
W.  Va.  399,  32  S.  E.  269. 

United  States. —  Clymer  v.  Dawkins,  3 
How.  674,  11  L.  ed.  778;  Baker  v.  Whiting, 
2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  787,  3  Sumn.  475. 

England. —  Ex  p.  Machell,  1  Rose  447,  2 
Vcs.  &  B.  216,  35  Eng.  Reprint  301. 

Canada. —  Handley  v.  Archibald,  30  Can. 
Sup.  Ct.  130;  Harris  v.  Mudie,  7  Ont.  App. 
414,  30  U.  C.  C.  P.  484;  Dumble  f.  Larush, 
25  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  552,  27  Grant  Ch. 
(U.  C )  187.  Compare  Hartley  v.  Maycock, 
28  Ont.  508. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  29. 

Mineral  lands. —  Moragne  v.  Doe,  143  Ala. 
45'9,  39  So.  161,  111  Am.  St.  Rep.  52;  South- 
mayd i:  Southmayd,  4  Mont.  100,  5  Pac.  318. 

Even  though  a  tenant  in  common  in  pos- 
session takes  all  the  profits  without  sharing 
with  his  cotenants,  the  presumption  in  the 
text  applies.  Thornton  v.  York  Bank,  45 
Me.  158. 

The  possession  of  the  husband  of  a  coten- 
ant,  recognizing  the  cotenancy,  is  the  posses- 
sion of  all.  Mott  V.  Carolina  Land,  etc.,  Co., 
146  N.  C.  525,  60  S.  E.  423.  And  the  entry 
of  a  husband  on  the  common  property  in  the 
right  of  his  wife  inures  to  the  benefit  of  her 
cotenants.  Young  r.  Adams,  14  B.  Mon. 
(Ky.)  127,  58  Am.  Dec.  654.  But  a  married 
woman  living  with  her  husband  on  the  prem- 
ises is  not  estopped  as  a  tenant  in  common 
from  setting  up  adverse  title  in  him.  Cooper 
V.  Fox,  67  Miss.  237,  7  So.  342. 

A  grantee  of  the  interests  or  a  part  of  the 
interests  of  one  cotenant  is  presumed  to  hold 
under  the  terms  of  such  grant.  Moragne  v. 
Doe,  143  Ala.  459,  39'  So.  161,  111  Am.  St. 
Rep.  52;  Joyce  v.  Dyer,  189  Mass.  64,  75 
N.  E.  81,  10»  Am.  St.  Rep.  603;  Elder  v. 
McClaskey,  70  Fed.  529-,  17  C.  C.  A.  251  [re- 
versing 47  Fed.  154].  Thus  a  licensee  of  a 
cotenant  or  the  purchaser  of  an  undivided 
interest  is  pj-esumed  to  hold  his  possession 
in  recognition  of  the  cotenancy,  although 
such  presumption  is  rebuttable.  Bucknam  v. 
Bucknam,  30  Me.  494;  Cook  r.  Clinton,  64 
Mich.  309,  31  N.  W.  317,  8  Am.  St.  Rep.  816; 
Alsobrook  v.  Eggleston,  69  Miss.  833,  13  So. 
850. 

The  possession  of  one  coparcener,  eo 
nomine,  as  coparcener,  is  the  possession  of 
the  others.  Manchester  v.  Doddridge,  3  Ind. 
360 ;  Robertson  v.  Robertson,  2  B.  Mon.  (Ky.) 
235,  38  Am.  Dec.  148. 

89.  Gregg  r.   Roaring  Springs  Land,   etc.. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  CycJ     23 


strong  is  the  presumption  that  ordinarily  if  a  tenant  in  common  is  in  possession 
in  a  dual  character,  his  right  to  possession  will  be  attributed  to  the  cotenancy 
in  preference  to  his  other  capacity.""  Thus  property  having  descended  to  heirs, 
it  is  presumed  that  the  possession  and  management  thereof  by  one  is  for  the 
benefit  of  all;  and  such  possession  will  not  be  deemed  to  be  adverse  to,  but  in 
consonance  with  the  rights  of,  the  other  heirs  and  wUl  inure  to  their  benefit,  °^ 
and  so  as  to  distributees;  °^  and  the  entry  of  one  cotenant  claiming  by  virtue  of  a 
common  estate  is  sufficient  to  give  his  cotenants  seizin  according  to  their  respective 
titles,  unless  there  is  a  visible  adverse  seizin  of  some  part  of  the  land  that  has 
ripened  into  a  title.  °^  The  rule  has  no  application  where  persons  are  apparently 
but  not  actually  tenants  in  common. ''* 

3.  Ouster  and  Adverse  Possession  —  a.  Rule  Stated.  Tenants  in  common 
may  oust  each  other  of  the  possession  of  land,  and  statutes  of  limitations  will 
run  against  the  claims  of  and  under  the  ousted  cotenants  from  the  time  of  such 
ouster,"^  and  acts  of  disseizin  by  one  tenant  in  common  of  his  cotenants,  with 
notice  thereof  to  the  disseizees,  evidence  an  adverse  holding  and  the  statute  of 


Co.,  97  Mo.  App.  44,  70  S.  W.  920;  Metz  v. 
Metz,  48  S.  C.  472,  26  S.  E.  787. 

90.  Mellon  «.  Reed,  114  Pa.  St.  647,  8  Atl. 
227.  Compare  Valentine  i:  Healey,  158  N.  Y. 
369,  52  N.  E.  1097,  43  L.  E.  A.  667. 

The  possession  of  the  ownet  of  a  mortgage, 
who  is  at  the  same  time  the  owner  of  an 
undivided  interest  in  the  mortgaged  premises, 
will  be  presumed  to  be  by  virtue  of  his  co- 
tenancy and  not  that  of  his  mortgage,  unless 
it  was  acquired  by  virtue  of  said  mortgage 
and  so  retained.  Mellon  v.  Reed,  114  Pa.  St. 
647,  8  Atl.  227. 

Holding  over  under  lease. —  The  relation- 
ship of  landlord  and  tenant  is  not  readily 
inferable  between  tenants  in  common.  Boley 
V.  Barutio,  24  111.  App.  515.  If,  however,  a 
tenant  in  common  lease  the  undivided  in- 
terest of  his  cotenants  in  the  common  prop- 
erty and  after  the  expiration  of  such  lease 
expressly  or  impliedly  admits  that  he  is  con- 
tinuing to  hold  under  such  lease  or  does  some 
act  from  which  such  a  fact  might  be  fairly 
inferred,  his  possession  will  be  presumed  to 
be  under  his  lease,  as  that  of  any  other  ten- 
ant holding  over  in  the  absence  of  sufficient 
rebutting  evidence.  O'Connor  v.  Delaney,  53' 
Minn.  247,  54  N.  W.  1108,  39  Am.  St.  Rep. 
601;  Carson  v.  Broady,  56  Nebr.  648,  77 
N.  W.  80,  71  Am.  St.  Rep.  691;  Early  v. 
Friend,  16  Gratt.  (Va.)  21,  78  Am.  Dec.  649; 
Rockwell  V.  Luck,  32  Wis.  70. 

91.  Her  V.  Routh,  3  How.  (Miss.)  276; 
StuU  V.  StuU,  197  Pa.  St.  243,  47  Atl. 
240. 

Title  before  death  of  ancestor. —  If  a  part 
of  the  supposed  heirs  of  a  presumptively  dead 
owner  of  land  claim  as  against  their  sup- 
posed coheirs  therein  under  a  tax  deed  pro- 
cured before  the  presumption  of  death  arose, 
the  rule  is  otherwise.  Webster  V:  Webster, 
55  111.  325. 

92.  Elliott  V.  Holder,  3  Head   (Tenn.)  698. 

93.  Brown  v.  Wood,  17  Mass.  68;  Thomas 
V.  Hatch,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,899,  3  Sumn. 
170. 

94.  Oilman  v.  Stetson,  18  Me.  428.  See 
also  Webster  v.  Webster,  55  111.  325. 

95.  California. —  Casserly  v.  Alameda 
County,  153  Cal.  170,  94  Pac.  765. 


District  of  Columiia. —  Morris  f.  Wheat, 
11  App.  Cas.  201. 

Hawaii. —  Nakuaimanu  v.  Halstead,  4 
Hawaii  42. 

Illinois. —  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tice,  232 
111.  232,  83  N".  E.  818. 

Indiana. —  D-umont  v.  Dufore,  27  Ind.  263. 

Kansas.— See  Rand  v.  Huff,  (App.  1897) 
51  Pac.  577  [affirmed  in  (18'9'8)  53  Pac.  483]. 

Kentucky. —  Larman  v.  Huey,  13  B.  Mon. 
436. 

Maine. —  Richardson  f.  Richardson,  72  Me. 
403. 

Massachusetts. —  Parker  v.  Proprietors 
Merrimack  River  Locks,  etc.,  3  Mete.  91,  37 
Am.  Dee.  121. 

Michigan. —  Campau  f.  Dubois,  39  Mich. 
274. 

Mississippi. —  Her  v.  Routh,  3  How.  276. 

Missouri. —  Hoffstetter  f.  Blattner,  8  Mo. 
276. 

New  York. —  Tarplee  v.  Sonn,  109  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  241,  96  N.  Y.  Suppl.  6;  Jackson 
V.  Brink,  5  Cow.  483. 

North  Carolina. — Woodlief  v.  Woodlief,  136 
N.  C.  133,  48  S.  E.  583. 

Oregon. — Northrop  v.  Marquam,  16  Oreg. 
173,  18  Pac.  44fl. 

Texas. —  Peeler  v.  Guilkey,  27  Tex.  355. 

United  States. —  Rickard  v.  Williams,  7 
Wheat.  59',  5  L.  ed.  398;  Dexter  v.  Arnold, 
7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3',86'9,  2  Sumn.  162. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  30  et  seq. 

The  North  Carolina  rule  is  that  a  presump- 
tion of  adverse  holding  arises  after  twenty 
years'  continuous  sole  possession.  The  seven 
years'  limitations  prescribed  in  the  North 
Carolina  code.  Civ.  Proc.  §  141,  as  to  acts 
of  adverse  possession  under  color  of  title,  is 
not  applicable  to  the  possession  and  claim 
of  adverse  holding  between  cotenants.  Jeter 
V.  Davis,  109  N.  0.  458,  13  S.  E.  908;  Hamp- 
ton V.  Wheeler,  99  N.  C.  222,  6  S.  E.  236; 
Breden  v.  McLaurin,  98  N.  0.  307,  4  S.  E. 
136;  Page  v.  Branch,  S7  N.  C.  97,  1  S.  E. 
625,  2  Am.  St.  Rep.  281;  Hicks  v.  Bullock, 
96  N.  C.  164,  1  S.  E.  629. 

Analogy  to  landlord  and  tenant. —  There  is 
a  strong  analogy  between   the   relations   be- 

[III,  C,  3.  a] 


M     [38  Cyc] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


limitations  begins  to  run  at  the  time  of  such  disseizin  and  notice/"  unless  there 
be  statutes  to  the  contrary."    But  a  tenant  in  common  will  not  be  presumed  to 


tween  landlords  and  tenants  and  those  of 
tenants  in  common,  and  therefore  if  one  in 
possession  ousts  the  other  or  denies  his  ten- 
ure such  act  makes  the  possession  adverse. 
Grant  v.  Paddock,  30  Oreg.  312,  47  Pac.  712; 
Willison  v.  Watkins,  3i  Pet.  (U.  S.)  43^  7 
L.  ed.  596. 

Estoppel  from  claiming  benefit  as  coten- 
ant. — Where  one  of  two  tenants  in  common 
claims  exclusive  right  to  a  moiety  of  the  land 
and  his  possession  thereof  continues  until 
after  the  statute  of  limitations  applies,  he  is 
estopped  from  claiming  his  interest  as  ten- 
ant in  common  in  the  residue.  Gregg  f. 
Blackmore,  10  Watts   (Pa.)  192. 

Common  title  including  uninclosed  lands. — 
Where  title  by  adverse  possession  is  estab- 
lished by  one  tenant  in  common  against  his 
cotenant  the  deed,  will,  patent,  or  other  in- 
strument under  which  both  claimed  originally 
operates  in  favor  of  the  claimant  by  adverse 
possession  as  color  of  title,  so  as  to  extend 
his  possession  to  uninclosed  lands.  Broom 
V.  Pearson,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1904)  81  S.  W. 
753;  Russell  v.  Tennant,  63  W.  Va.  623,  60 
S.  E.  609,  129  Am.  St.  Rep.  1024. 

Purchase  at  tax-sale. —  Limitations  will 
not  run  in  favor  of  a  purchasing  cotenant  of 
a  tax  title  until  after  a  refusal  of  contribu- 
tion by  his  cotenant.  Phillips  f.  Wilmarth, 
98  Iowa  32,  66  N.  W.  1053.  And  a  cotenant 
purchasing  his  cotenant's  interest  at  an 
irregular  and  invalid  tax-sale,  which  vests 
him  with  a  lien  only  upon  the  property,  re- 
ceiving sufiBcient  rent  to  reimburse  himself 
before  the  expiration  of  a  time  in  which 
his  lien  might  ripen  into  a  title,  must  apply 
the  rents  for  such  reimbursement  and  may 
not  permit  the  statute  of  limitations  to  run 
in  his  favor.  Davis  v.  Chapman,  24  Fed. 
674. 

Attornment  of  tenants  of  land  to  one  co- 
Bwner  will  nOt  start  the  statute  of  limita- 
tions running  in  his  favor  as  against  the 
other  coowner  thereof  unless  such  attorn- 
ment is  made  with  the  latter's  consent.  Sco- 
fleld  1-.  Douglass,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1895)  30 
S.  W.  817. 

The  burden  of  proof  is  on  him  claiming 
title  to  the  common  property,  because  the 
other  cotenants  have  the  benefit  of  the  pre- 
sumptions in  their  favor.  Parker  v.  Brast, 
45  W.  Va.  399,  32  S.  E.  269.  The  one  having 
burden  of  proof  must  show  an  actual  ouster 
or  a  presumption  thereof  or  a  non-recogni- 
tion of  the  rights  of  the  other  cotenants  by 
the  one  in  possession.  Mott  t".  Carolina 
Land,  etc.,  Co.,  146  N.  C.  525.,  60  S.  E.  423. 

96.  Alabama. —  Inglis  r.  Webb,  117  Ala. 
387,  23  So.  125;  Brady  r.  Huff,  75  Ala.  80. 

Arkansas. —  Brewer  v.  Keeler,  42  Ark.  289. 

CoK/omm.— Webb  v.  Winter,  (1901)  65 
Pac.  1028. 

Georgia. —  Cain  v.  Furlow,  47  Ga.  674. 

/mnois.— Steele  c.  Steele,  220  111.  318,  77 
N.  E.  232;  Bovd  r.  Boyd,  176  111.  40,  51 
N.  E.  782,  68  Am.  St.  Rep.   169;  Littlejohn 

[III,  C,  3,  a] 


V.  Barnes,  138  111.  478,  28  N.  E.  980;  Burgett 
V.  Taliaferro,  118  111.  603,  9  N.  E.  334. 

Indiana. —  Grubbs  v.  Leyendecker,  153  Ind. 
348,  53  N.  E.  940;  Wright  v.  Kleyla,  104  Ind. 
223,  4  N.  E.  16. 

Kentucky. —  Bloom  v.  Sawyer,  121  Ky.  308, 
89  S.  W.  204,  28  Ky.  L.  Rep.  349;  Rose  !;. 
Ware,  115  Ky.  420,  74  S.  W.  188,  24  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  2321,  76  S.  W.  505,  25  Ky.  L.  Rep.  947; 
GiUaspie  v.  Osburn,  9  A.  K.  Marsh.  77,  13 
Am.  Dec.  136. 

Michigan. — Weshgyl  v.  Schick,  113  Mich. 
22,  71  N.  W.  323. 

Mississippi. — ^Alsobrook  v.  Eggleston,  69 
Miss.  833,  13  So.  850 ;  Her  v.  Routh,  3  How. 
276. 

Missouri. —  Chapman  v.  KuUman,  191  Mo. 
237,  89  S.  W.  924;  Whitaker  v.  Whitaker, 
157  Mo.  342,  58  S.  W.  5. 

New  Mexico. — Armijo  v.  Neher,  11  N.  M. 
645,  72  Pac.  12. 

North  Carolina. —  St.  Peter's  Church  V. 
Bragaw,  144  N.  C.  126,  56  S.  E.  688,  10 
L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  633. 

Ohio. —  Payne  v.  Cooksey,  8  Ohio  S.  &  C. 
PI.  Dec.  407,  7  Ohio  N.  P.  90. 

Pennsylvania. —  Rider  r.  Maul,  46  Pa.  St. 
376. 

Texas. —  Mayes  v.  Manning,  73  Tex.  43,  11 
S.  W.  136;  Golson  r.  Fielder,  2  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  400^  21  S.  W.  173. 

Vermont. —  Roberts  r.  Morgan,  30  Vt.  319; 
Buckmaster  r.  Needham,  22  Vt.  617. 

West  Virginia. — Parker  v.  Brast,  45  W.  Va. 
399,  32  S.  E.  269. 

Wisconsin. —  Saladin  v.  Kraayvanger,  96 
Wis.  180,  70  N.  W.  1113;  Stewart  v.  Stewart, 
83  Wis.  364,  53  N.  W.  686,  35  Am.  St.  Rep. 
67;  Sydnor  v.  Palmer,  29  Wis.  226. 

United  States. — Clvmer  v.  Dawkins,  3  How. 
674,  11  L.  ed.  778 ;"  Willison  v.  Watkins,  3 
Pet.  43,  7  L.  ed.  596. 

Canada. —  Van  Velsor  r.  Hughson,  45  U.  0. 
Q.  B.  252,  9  Ont.  App.  390. 

That  the  husband  of  a  cotenant  has  per- 
formed such  acts  may  be  proven.  Ashford 
V.  Ashford,  136  Ala.  631,  34  So.  10,  96  Am. 
St.  Rep.  82. 

A  tax  deed  when  coupled  with  possession 
is  sufficient  color  of  title  to  put  the  statute 
of  limitations  into  operation.  Craven  r. 
Craven,  68  Nebr.  459,  94  N.  W.  604. 

The  attachment  of  the  entire  land  as  that 
of  the  tenant  in  common  in  possession  by  his 
creditors  is  such  an  act  of  ouster  as  will 
start  the  running  of  the  statute  of  limita- 
tions. Elsenheimer  r.  Sieck,  8  Ohio  Dec. 
(Reprint)   101,  5  Cine.  L.  Bui.  645. 

Adverse  possession  under  a  void  deed  is  not 
a  good  defense  to  an  action  of  ejectment 
for  an  undivided  interest  in  an  estate  held 
in  common.  Stewart  v.  Stewart,  83  Wis. 
364,  53  N".  W.  686,  35  Am.  St.  Rep.  67.  See 
also  Sparks  v.  Bodensick,  72  Kan.  5,  82  Pac. 
463. 

97.  Stern  v.  Selleck,  136  Iowa  291,  111 
N.  W.  451. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  CycJ     25 


have  title  by  virtue  of  the  bar  of  the  statute  of  limitations  in  a  less  period  than  fixed 
by  such  statutes,  after  the  absence  or  removal  of  disabilities."' 

b.  What  Constitutes  Ouster  or  Adverse  Possession  —  (i)  In  General. 
Ouster  is  not  necessarily  a  physical  eviction.  It  may  exist  if  there  be  possession 
of  or  imder  the  adverse  claimant,  attended  with  such  circumstances  as  to  evidence 
a  claim  of  exclusive  right  and  title,  and  a  denial  of  the  rights  of  the  other  cotenants, 
and  if  such  possession  continues  uninterruptedly  for  the  statutory  period  after 
the  time  that  knowledge  thereof  is,  in  law,  chargeable  to  those  out  of  possession, 
it  may  become  indefeasible."'    But  before  a  tenant  in  common  can  rely  on  an 


98.  Conkey  v.  John  L.  Eoper  Lumber  Co., 
126  N.  C.  499,  36  S.  B.  42;  Neely  v.  Neely, 
79  N.  C.  478;  Gray  v.  Givens,  Riley  Eq. 
(S.  C.)  41,  2  Hill  Eq.  511;  Smith  v.  Kincaid, 
10  Humphr.  (Tenn.)  73;  Van  Velsor  v.  Hugh- 
son,  45  U.  C.  Q.  B.  252,  9  Ont.  App.  390. 

If  there  be  disability  or  no  right  of  entry 
on  the  part  of  those  intended  by  said  act  to 
have  been  disseized,  at  the  time  of  an  act 
of  disseizin,  limitations  first  begin  to  run 
against  them  after  the  right  of  entry  has 
accrued,  or  disability  is  removed.  Dobbins 
1-.  Dobbins,  141  N.  C.  210,  53  S.  E.  870>  115 
Am.  St.  Rep.  682;  Marr  v.  Gilliam,  1  Coldw. 
(Tenn.)  488;  Merryman  v.  Hoover,  107  Va. 
485,  59  S.  E.  483;  McNeely  v.  South  Penn 
Oil  Co.,  58  W.  Va.  438,  52  S.  E.  480.  Com- 
pare Mott  f.  Carolina  Land,  etc.,  Co.,  146 
N.  C.  525,  60  S.  E.  423.  But  not  where  the 
claim  of  ownership  is  made  under  an  an- 
cestor who  was  not  under  disability  at  said 
time.     Dobbins  f.  Dobbins,  141  N.  C.  210,  53 

5.  E.  870,  115  Am.  St.  Rep.  682.  An  infant 
cotenant  is  not  chargeable  with  notice. 
Northrop  v.  Marquam,  16  Oreg.  173,  18  Pao. 
449. 

99.  Alabama. —  Gulf    Red     Cedar    Lumber 
Co.  V.  Crenshaw,   148  Ala.  343,  42  So.  564 
Jellerson  t.  Pettus,  132  Ala.  671,  32  So.  663 
Inglis   V.  Webb,   117   Ala.   387,   23   So.    125 
Brady  f.   Huff,   75   Ala.   80;   Abercrombie  v. 
Baldwin,  15  Ala.  363. 

California. —  Feliz  v.  Feliz,  105  Cal.  1,  38 
Pac.  521;  Alvarado  v.  Nordholt,  95  Cal.  116, 
30  Pac.  211;  Winterburn  f.  Chambers,  91 
Cal.  170,  27  Pac.  658;  Aguirre  v.  Alexander, 
58  Cal.  21;  Colman  v.  Clements,  23  Cal.  245; 
Mills  V.  Tukey,  22  Cal.  373,  83  Am.  Dec.  74. 

Connecticut. — ^Wooster  v.  Hunts  Ljrman 
Iron  Co.,  38i  Conn.  256 ;  Newell  v.  Woodruff, 
30  Conn.  492. 

Illinois.—  Steele  v.  Steele,  220  111.  318,  77 
N.  E.  232;  Kotz  v.  Belz,  178  111.  434,  53 
N.  E.  367;  Ball  v.  Palmer,  81  111.  370.  See 
also  Dawson  v.  Edwards,  189  111.  60,  59  N.  E. 
5130,  holding  that  mere  failure  to  pay  the  co- 
tenants  for  their  interest  in  the  common 
property,  as  agreed,  is  not  STifficient  to  rebut 
evidence  of  an  adverse  holding  after  the  ex- 
piration of  the  period  of  limitations  and  a 
mesne  conveyance  and  a  reconveyance  to  said 
debtor. 

Indiama. —  Grubbs  ;•.  Leyendecker,  153  Ind. 
348,  53  N.  E.  940;  Elliott  t:  Frakes,  90  Ind. 
389;  McCrum  v.  McCrum,  36  Ind.  App.  636, 
76  N.  E.  415. 

Iowa. — Blankenhorn  v.  Lenox,  123  Iowa  67, 
88  N.  W.  556;  Murray  v.  Quigley,  119  Iowa 

6,  92  N.  W.  869,  «7  Am.  St.  Rep.  276 ;  Casey 


V.  Casey,  107  Iowa  192,  77  N.  W.  844,  70 
Am.  St.  Rep.  190;  Van  Ormer  v.  Harley,  102 
Iowa  150,  71  N.  W.  241;  Sorenson  v.  Davis, 
83  Iowa  405,  49  N.  W.  1004;  Knowles  v. 
Brown,  69  Iowa  11,  28  N.  W.  409;  Laraway 
V.  Larue,  63  Iowa  407,  19  N.  W.  242;  Burns 
V.  Byrne,  45  Iowa  286;  Conover  v.  Earl,  26 
Iowa  167. 

Kansas. — i  Squires  f.  Clark,  17  Kan.  84 ; 
Rand  v.  Huff,  (App.  1897)  51  Pac.  577  [af- 
firmed in   (1898)   53  Pac.  483]. 

Kentucky. —  Rose  v.  Ware,  115  Ky.  420, 
74  S.  W.  188,  24  Ky.  L.  Rep.  2321,  76  S.  W. 
505,  25  Ky.  L.  Rep.  947;  Barret  v.  Coburn, 
3  Mete.  510;  Russell  v.  Mark,  3  Mete.  37; 
Taylor  v.  Cox,  2  B.  Mon.  429. 

Maine. — Wheeler  v.  Wheeler,  33  Me.  347; 
Colburn  v.  Mason,  25  Me.  434,  43  Am.  Dec. 
292. 

Maryland. —  Van  Bibber  v.  Frazier,  17  Md. 
436. 

Massachusetts. —  Bennett  v.  Clemence,  6 
Allen  10;  Lefavour  v.  Homan,  3  Allen  354; 
Bigelow  V.  Jones,  10  Pick.  161;  Cummings  v. 
Wyman,  10  Mass.  464;  Leonard  f.  Leonard, 
10  Mass.  281. 

Michigan. —  Williams  v.  Rogers,  110  Mich. 
418,  68  N.  W.  240. 

Minnesota. —  Cameron  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  60  Minn.  100,  61  N.  W.  814,  holding  that 
one  tenant  in  common  retaining  the  exclusive 
possession  and  refusing  to  purchase  and  pay 
for  the  interest  of  his  cotenant  is  an  ouster. 

Mississippi. —  Cooper  v.  Fox,  67  Miss.  237, 
7  So.  342;  Her  i:  Routh,  3  How.  276. 

Missouri. — ■  Chapman  v.  KuUman,  191  Mo. 
237,  89  S.  W.  924;  Whitaker  v.  Whitaker, 
157  Mo.  342,  58  S.  W.  5;  Hutson  v.  Hutson, 
139  Mo.  229',  40  S.  W.  886 ;  Childs  v.  Kansas 
City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (1891)  17  S.  W.  954;  Peck 
V.  Lockridge,  97  Mo.  549,  11  S.  W.  246; 
Lapeyre  v.  Paul,  47  Mo.  586;  Warfield  v. 
Lindell,  38  Mo.  561,  90  Am.  Dec.  443;  Robi- 
doux  V.  Cassilegi,   10  Mo.  App.  516. 

Montana. — Ayotte  v.  Nadeau,  32  Mont. 
498,  81  Pac.  145;  Butte,  etc.,  Consol.  Min. 
Co.  f.  Montana  Ore-Purchasing  Co.,  (1898) 
55  Pac.  12. 

Neiraska. — Craven  v.  Craven,  68  Nebr.  459, 
94  N.  W.  604;  Beall  v.  McMenemy,  63  Nebr. 
70,  88  N.  W.  134,  93  Am.  St.  Rep.  427;  Car- 
son V.  Broady,  56  Nebr.  648,  77  N.  W.  80, 
71  Am.  St.  Rep.  691. 

New  Yorfc.— Wright  v.  Saddler,  20  N.  Y. 
320;  Merolla  v.  Lane,  122  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  535, 
107  N.  Y.  Suppl.  439;  Tarplee  v.  Sonn,  109 
N.  Y.  App.  Div.  241,  96  N.  Y.  Suppl.  6;  Zapf 
V.  Carter,  70  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  395,  75  N.  Y.' 
Suppl.  197 ;  Sweetland  v.  Buell,  89  Hun  543, 

[III,  C,  3,  b,  (I)] 


26     [38  CycJ 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


ouster  of  his  cotenants,  he  must  claim  the  entire  title  to  the  land  in  himself,  and 
must  hold  the  exclusive  and  adverse  possession  against  every  other  person,  thus 


35  K.  Y.  Suppl.  346  [affirmed  in  164  X.  Y. 
541,  58  N.  E.  663,  79  Am.  St.  Rep.  676]';  Koke 
V.  Balken,  73  Hun  145,  25  N.  Y.  Suppl.  1038 
[affirmed  in  148  N.  Y.  73"2,  42  N.  E.  724]; 
Humbert  v.  Trinity  Church,  24  Wend.  587; 
Jackson  v.  Tibbits,  &  Cow.  241. 

North  Carolina. —  Mott  r.  Carolina  Land, 
etc.,  Co.,  146  jST.  C.  525,  60  S.  E.  423;  St. 
Peter's  Church  v.  Bragaw,  144  N.  C.  126,  56 
S.  E.  688,  10  L.  E.  A.  K.  S.  633;  Ehea  r. 
Craig,  141  N.  C.  602,  54  S.  E.  408;  Bullin 
V.  Hancock,  138  N.  0.  198,  50  S.  E.  621; 
Woodlief  !•.  Woedlief,  136  N.  C.  133',  48  S.  E. 
5«3;  Shannon  r.  Lamb,  126  N.  C.  38,  35 
S.  E.  232;  Roscoe  (■.  John  L.  Koper  Lumber 
Co.,  124  X.  C.  42,  32  S.  E.  389;  Morrison  v. 
Morrison,  122  N.  C.  5«8,  29  S.  E.  901;  Lenoir 
V.  Valley  River  Min.  Co.,  113  N.  C.  513,  18 
S.  E.  73  (holding  that  ownership  under  color 
of  title  and  the  operation  of  the  statute  of 
limitations  may  be  shown  in  ejectment)  ; 
Lenoir  v.  Valley  River  Min.  Co.,  106  N.  C. 
473,  11  S.  E.  516;  Anders  v.  Anders,  31  N.  C. 
214;  Hargrove  v.  Powell,  19  N.  C.  97  (holding 
that  refusal  to  admit  the  right  of  a  cotenant 
subsequent  to  demise  laid  may  give  rise  to 
an  inference  of  ouster  at  the  time  of  the 
demise)  ;  Cloud  f.  Webb,  15  N.  C.  290,  25 
Am.  Dec.  711. 

Oregon. —  Mattis  r.  Hosmer,  37  Oreg.  523, 
62  Pac.  17,  632. 

Pennsylvania. —  Rohrbach  v.  Sanders,  212 
Pa.  St.  636,  62  Atl.  27;  Maul  v.  Rider,  51 
Pa.  St.  377;  Bennet  v.  Bullock,  35  Pa.  St. 
364;  Craig  v.  Craig,  8  Pa.  Cas.  357,  11 
Atl.  60;  Law  v.  Patterson,  1  Watts  &  S.  184; 
Lodge  r.  Patterson,  3  Watts  74,  27  Am.  Dec. 
335;  Milliken  r.  Brown,  10  Serg.  &  R.  188; 
Frederick  v.  Gray,  10  Serg.   &  E.   182. 

South  Carolina. —  Burnett  v.  Crawford,  50 
S.  C.  161,  27  S.  E.  645;  Annely  v.  De  Saus- 
sure,  26  S.  C.  497,  2  S.  E.  490,  40  Am.  St. 
Rep.  725;  Jefcoat  v.  Knotts,  13  Rich.  50; 
Gray  v.  Bates,  3  Strobh.  498 ;  Gray  !-".  Givens, 
Riley  Eq.  41,  2  Hill  Eq.  511. 

Tennessee. —  Hubbard  i.  Wood,  1  Sneed 
279. 

Texas. —  Moody  i:  Butler,  63  Tex.  210; 
Baily  v.  Trammell,  27  Tex.  317;  Alexander 
r.  Kennedy,  19  Tex.  488,  49'3,  70  Am.  Dec. 
358i;  Cryer  r.  Andrews,  11  Tex.  170;  Honea 
v.  Arledge,  (Civ.  App.  1909)  120  S.  W.  508; 
Frey  v.  Myers,  (Civ.  App.  1908)  113  S.  W. 
592;  Keith  r.  Keith,  39  Tex.  Civ.  App.  363, 
87  S.  W.  384;  Madison  i:  Matthews,  (Civ. 
App.  1902)  66-  S.  W.  803;  Neweomb  v.  Cox, 
27  Tex.  Civ.  App.  583,  66  S.  W.  338 ;  Garcia 
i:  Illg,  14  Tex.  Civ.  App.  482,  37  S.  W.  471. 

Vermont.—  Chandler  r.  Ricker,  49  Vt.  128 ; 
Holley  v.  Hawley,  39  Vt.  525,  94  Am.  Dec. 
350;  Brock  !:.  Eastman,  28  Vt.  658,  67  Am. 
Dec.  733;    Carpenter  v.  Thayer,   15  Vt.  552. 

Washington. — ■  Cox  r.  Tompkinson,  39 
Wash.  70,  80  Pac.  1005. 

West  Virginia. —  Russell  r.  Tennant,  63 
W.  Va.  623,  60  S.  E.  609,  129  Am.  St.  Rep. 
1024;  Oneal  r.  Stimson,  61  W.  Va.  551,  56 
S.  E.  889;  Justice  r.  Lawson,  46  W.  Va.  163, 

[m,  c,  3,  b,  (I)] 


33  S.  E.  102;  Parker  !;.  Brast,  45  W.  Va. 
399,  32  S.  E.  269 ;  Davis  v.  Settle,  43  W.  Va. 
17,  26  S.  E.  557 ;  Cooey  v.  Porter,  22  W.  Va. 
120. 

Wisconsin. —  McCann  i:  Welch,  106  Wis. 
142,  81  N.  W.  9«6;  Stewart  c.  Stewart,  83 
Wis.  364,  53  N.  W.  686,  35  Am.  St.  Rep.  67. 

United  States. — Clymer  v.  Dawkins,  3  How. 
674,  11  L.  ed.  778;  Elder  v.  McClaskey,  70 
Fed.  529,  17  C.  C.  A.  251  [reversing  47  Fed. 
154]. 

England. —  Doe  v.  Prosser,  Cowp.  217,  98 
Eng.  Eeprint  1052. 

Canada. —  Zwicker  v.  Morash,  34  Nova 
Scotia  565  (holding  that  the  occupying  of 
the  common  land  by  a  structure  such  as  to 
necessarily  exclude  the  cotenants  amounts  to 
an  ouster)  ;  Mason  v.  Xorris,  18  Grant  Ch. 
(U.  C.)  50O;  Van  Velsor  r.  Hughson,  45 
U.  C.  Q.  B.  252,  9  Ont.  App.  390. 

See  45.  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  42  et  seq. 

Not  sufierlng  a  cotenant  to  enter  and  oc- 
cupy the  common  property  by  virtue  of  the 
cotenancy  is  an  ouster.  Norris  f.  Sullivan, 
47  Conn.  474;  Barret  r.  Coburn,  3  Mete. 
(Ky.)  510;  Gill  v.  Fauntleroy,  8  B.  Mon. 
(Kv.)  177;  Bracket  r.  Xoreross,  1  Me.  89; 
Jordan  r.  Surghnor,  107  Mo.  520,  17  S.  W. 
1009;  Vandyek  v.  Van  Beuren,  1  Cai.  (X.  Y.) 
84. 

Demand  and  refusal. — A  demand  for  pos- 
session by  one  of  the  cotenants  by  virtue  of 
the  cotenancy,  and  a  refusal  of  such  demand, 
is  an  ouster,  but  otherwise  if  the  demand  is 
based  upon  an  independent  claim  of  title. 
Meredith  v.  Andres,  29'  N.  C.  5,  45  Am.  Dec. 
504.  See  also  Wooster  v.  Hunts  Lyman  Iron 
Co.,  38  Conn.  256. 

Facts  held  insufficient  to  prove  ouster  or 
adverse  holding  as  between  cotenants. — A 
claim  not  including  the  entire  common  prop- 
erty, but  only  an  undivided  portion  thereof 
(Chapman  i:  KuUman,  191  Mo.  237,  89  S.  W. 
924;  Edwards  v.  Bishop,  4  N.  Y.  61;  Earn- 
shaw  V.  Myers,  1  N.  Y.  Suppl.  901;  Clymer 
r.  Dawkins,  3  How.  (U.  S.)  674,  11  L.  ed. 
778)  ;  in  the  absence  of  notice  to  his  coten- 
ants of  adverse  holding  or  of  a  demand  for 
admission  and  a  refusal  thereof,  the  posses- 
sion, control,  payment  of  taxes  or  expenses, 
or  the  improvement  of  the  common  property 
by  one  cotenant  therein  (Miller  r.  Myers,  46 
Cal.  535;  Wooster  v.  Hunts  Lyman  Iron  Co., 
38  Conn.  256;  Newell  r.  Woodruff,  30  Conn. 
492 ;  Donason  v.  Barbero,  230  111.  138,  82 
N.  E.  620;  Blackaby  i:  Blackaby,  185  111.  94, 
56  N.  E.  1053;  McMahill  i:  Torrence,  163 
111.  277,  45  N.  E.  269 ;  Hudson  r.  Coe,  79  Me. 
83,  8  Atl.  249,  1  Am.  St.  Rep.  288;  Colburn 
v.  Mason,  25  Me.  434,  43  Am.  Dec.  292; 
Dahlem  r.  Abbott,  146  Mich.  605,  110  N.  W. 
47;  Perkins  v.  Eaton,  64  N.  H.  359,  10  Atl. 
704;  Madison  v.  Matthews,  (Tex.  Civ.  App. 
1902)  66  S.  W.  803;  Chandler  v.  Ricker,  49 
Vt.  128;  Boggess  v.  Meredith,  16  W.  Va.  1), 
even  under  a  deed  from  a  stranger  to  one  of 
the  tenants  in  common  and  the  recording  of 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  CycJ     27 


repudiating  the  relation  of  cotenancy,'  for  an  ouster  of  one  tenant  in  common  by 
his  cotenant  is  not  to  be  presumed  in  the  absence  of  some  open  notorious  act  of 
ouster  and  adverse  possession,  and  possession  by  a  tenant  in  common  is  not  adverse 
as  to  his  cotenants  until  they  are  so  informed,  either  by  express  notice  or  by  acts 
of  such  an  open,  notorious,  and  hostile  character  as  to  be  notice  in  themselves, 
or  sufficient  to  put  the  cotenants  upon  inquiry  which  if  diligently  pursued  will 
lead  to  actual  knowledge,^  the  acts  and  declarations  of  a  tenant  in  common, 


said  deed  (Thornton  v.  York  Bank,  43  Me. 
158;  Holley  v.  Hawley,  39  Vt.  525,  94  Am. 
Dec.  350)  ;  a  mere  claim  under  a  deed  (Ed- 
wards V.  Bishop,  4  N.  Y.  61)  ;  the  claim  made 
to  the  son  of  a  living  tenant  in  common  that 
claimant  had  more  right  in  the  premises  than 
he,  the  son,  had  (Campau  v.  Campau,  45 
Mich.  367,  8  N.  W.  85)  ;  the  distribution  of 
lands  by  a  probate  court  only  authorized  by 
statute  to  distribute  undivided  portions 
thereof  (Mitchell  v.  Hazen,  4  Conn.  495,  10 
Am.  Dec.  ISS)  ;  a  mere  demand  and  refusal 
to  be  let  into  possession  (Carpentier  v.  Men- 
denhall,  28  Cal.  484,  8i7  Am.  Dec.  135) ;  direct 
or  indirect  purchase  of  an  outstanding  title 
(English  V.  Powell,  119  Ind.  93,  21  N.  E. 
458)  ;  and  admission  of  possession  of  de- 
manded premises  and  the  remark  that  "  it 
is  hard  to  pay  twice  "  ( Colburn  v.  Mason,  25 
Me.  434,  43  Am.  Dec.  292). 

Facts  held  sufScient  to  prove  ouster  or 
adverse  holding  as  between  cotenants. — ^Acts 
or  matters  in  pais  (Russell  v.  Tennant,  63 
W.  Va.  623,  60  S.  E.  609,  129  Am.  St.  Rep. 
1024)  ;  adverse  possession  for  a  long  time 
under  a  purchase  and  claim  in  entirety  (Illg 
V.  Garcia,  92  Tex.  251,  47  S.  W.  717;  Clymer 
V.  Dawkins,  3  How.  (U.  S.)  674,  11  L.  ed. 
778)  ;  acceptance  of  a  deed  of  the  whole 
property,  duly  acknowledged  and  recorded, 
from  one  who  has  no  title,  and  claiming  and 
exercising  the  rights  of  sole  ownership  under 
a  denial  of  any  other  person's  right  in  the 
premises  (Thornton  v.  York  Bank,  45  Me. 
158;  Holley  V.  Hawley,  39  Vt.  525,  94  Am. 
Dec.  350)  ;  refusal  to  give  up  a  moiety,  and 
declaration  that  the  one  in  possession  would 
first  litigate  his  rights  (Marcy  v.  Marcy,  6 
Mete.  (Mass.)  360)  ;  purchase  of  outstanding 
title  with  claim  of  sole  ownership  there- 
under (Clark  V.  Crego,  47  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  599 
[affirmed  in  51  N.  Y.  646])  ;  demand  to  be 
let  into  possession  and  refusal,  together  with 
sale  of  the  entire  property  by  one  cotenant 
therein  and  delivery  of  possession  to  the 
grantee  thereunder  (Wright  v.  Saddler,  20 
N.  Y.  320)  ;  and  assumption  of  ownership 
and  sale  of  the  common  property  (Dyckraan 
V.  Valiente,  42  N.  Y.  549). 

1.  Alabama. —  Courtner  «.  Etheredge,  149 
Ala.  78,  43  So.  368;  Stevenson  v.  Anderson, 
87  Ala.  228,  6  So.  285;  Gotten  v.  Thompson, 
26  Ala.  671. 

California. —  Carpentier  v.  Mendenhall,  28 
Cal.  484,  87  Am.  Dec.  135. 

Connecticut. — Wooster  f.  Hunts  Lyman 
Iron  Co.,  38  Conn.  256. 

Georgia. —  Roumillot  f.  Gardner,  113  Ga. 
60,  38  8.  B.  362,  53  L.  R.  A.  729. 

Illinois. —  Carpenter  v.  Fletcher,  239  111. 
440,  88  N.  E.  162;  Donason  v.  Barbero,  230 


111.  138,  82  N.  E.  620;  Comer  v.  Comer,  119 
111.  170,  8  N.  E.  796. 

Indiana. —  King  t.  Carmichael,  136  Ind.  20, 
35  N.  E.  509,  43  Am.  St.  Rep.  303 ;  English  v. 
Powell,  119  Ind.  93,  21  N.  E.  458. 

Iowa. —  Van  Ormer  v.  Harley,  102  Iowa 
150,  71  N.  W.  241;  Smith  v.  Young,  89  Iowa 
338,  56  N.  W.  506. 

Kansas. —  Schoonover  V.  Tyner,  72  Kan. 
475,  84  Pac.  124. 

UaAne. —  Hudson  v.  Ooe,  79  Me.  83,  8  Atl. 
249,  1  Am.  St.  Rep.  288  (holding  slight  acts 
of  ownership  on  wild  lands  insufficient)  ;  Col- 
burn V.  Mason,  25  Me.  434,  43  Am.  Dec.  292. 

Michigan. —  Butcher  v.  Butcher,  137  Mich. 
390,  100  N.  W.  604. 

Missouri. —  Benoist  v.  Rothschild,  145  Mo. 
399,  46  S.  W.  1081;  McQuiddy  v.  Ware,  67 
Mo.  74. 

New  Hampshire. —  Perkins  v.  Eaton,  64 
N.  H.  359,  10  Atl.  704. 

New  Mexico. —  Neher  v.  Armijo,  9  N.  M. 
325,  54  Pac.  236. 

New  York. —  Edwards  v.  Bishop,  4  N.  Y. 
61;  Northrop  v.  Wright,  24  Wend.  221. 

Ohio. —  Elsenheimer  v.  Sieck,  8  Ohio  Dec. 
(Reprint)    101,  5  Cine.  L.  Bui.  645. 

Pennsylvania. — Phillips  v.  Gregg,  10  Watts 
158,  36  Am.  Dec.  158;  Tanney  v.  Tanney, 
24  Pittsb.  Leg.  J.  N.  S.  43  [affirmed  in  159 
Pa.  St.  277,  28  Atl.  287,  39  Am.  St.  Rep. 
678]. 

Tennessee. —  Elliott  v.  Holder,  3  Head  698. 

Teaeas.—Wmgo  v.  Rudder,  (1910)  124  S.  W. 
899;  Teal  V.  Terrell,  58  Tex.  257;  Niday  v. 
Cochran,  42  Tex.  Civ.  App.  292,  93  S.  W. 
1027. 

Vermont. — Avery  v.  Hall,  50  Vt.  11 ;  Chand- 
ler V.  Ricker,  49  Vt.  128 ;  Leach  v.  Beattie,  33 
Vt.  195. 

Virginia. —  Buchanan  v.  King,  22  Gratt. 
414. 

United  States. —  Zeller  v.  Eckert,  4  How. 
289,  11  L.  ed.  979 ;  Bradstreet  v.  Huntington, 
5  Pet.  402,  440,  8  L.  ed.  170;  McClung  v. 
Ross,  5  Wheat.  116,  5  L.  ed.  46;  Barr  v. 
Gratz,  4  Wheat.  213,  4  L.  ed.  553. 

England. —  Denys  i;.  Shuckburgh,  5  Jur. 
21,  4  Y.  &  C.  Exch.  42. 

See  46  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  42  et  seq. 

2.  Alabama. — Sumner  v.  Hill,  157  Ala.  230, 
47  So.  565;  Cramton  v.  Rutledge,  157  Ala. 
141,  47  So.  214;  Courtner  v.  Etheredge,  149 
Ala.  78,  43  So.  368;  Gulf  Red  Cedar  Lumber 
Co.  v.  Crenshaw,  148  Ala.  343,  42  So.  564; 
Moragne  v.  Doe,  143  Ala.  459,  39  So.  161. 
Ill  Am.  St.  Rep.  52;  Inglis  v.  Webb,  117 
Ala.  387,  23  So.  125 ;  Sibley  v.  Alba,  95  Ala. 
191,  10  So.  831;  Fielder  v.  Childs,  73  Ala. 
567. 

[Ill,  C,  3,  b,  (I)] 


28     [38  CycJ 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


intended  to  show  his  adverse  holding  so  as  to  entitle  him  to  the  benefit  of  the 


Arkansas. —  McKneely  «.  Terry,  61  Ark. 
527,  33  S.  W.  953;  Brewer  v.  Keeler,  42  Ark. 
289. 

California. —  Faubel  v.  McFarland,  144  Cal. 
717,  78  Pac.  261;  Webb  K.  Winter,  (1901) 
65  Pac.  1028;  Plass  t.  Plass,  121  Cal.  131,  53 
Pac.  448;  Gregory  v.  Gregory,  102  Cal.  50, 
36  Pac.  364;  Gage  v.  Downey,  94  Cal.  241, 
29  Pac.  635;  In  re  Grider,  81  Cal.  571,  22 
Pac.  908;  McClure  v.  Colyear,  80  Cal.  378, 
22  Pac.  175;  Oglesby  v.  HoUiater,  76  Cal. 
136,  18  Pac.  146,  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  177; 
Aguirre  x.  Alexander,  58  Cal.  21;  Olney  f. 
Sawyer,  54  Cal.  379;  Packard  «.  Johnson,  51 
Cal.  545 ;  Miller  v.  Myers,  46  Cal.  535 ;  Born- 
heimer  f.  Baldwin,  42  Cal.  27;  Carpentier  v. 
Gardiner,  29  Cal.  160;  Owen  f.  Morton,  24 
Cal.  373;  Colman  v.  Clements,  23  Cal.  245; 
Baumgarten  v.  Mitchell,  10  Cal.  App.  48,  101 
Pac.  43. 

Connecticut. — ^Wooster  r.  Hunts  Lyman 
Iron  Co.,  38  Conn.  256.  But  see  Adams  l". 
Manning,  51  Conn.  5. 

Delaware. —  Jlilbourn  v.  David,  7  Houst. 
209,  30  Atl.  971. 

District  of  Columbia. —  Morris  v.  Wheat, 
11  App.  Cas.  201. 

Florida. —  Coogler  v.  Rogers,  25  Fla.  853,  7 
So.  391. 

Georgia. —  Harriss  v.  Howard,  126  Ga.  325, 
55  S.  E.  59;  Morgan  f.  Mitchell,  104  6a, 
596,  30  S.  E.  792;  Morris  r.  Davis,  75  Ga. 
169;  Boyd  V.  Hand,  65  Ga.  468. 

Haicaii. —  Smith  t.  Hamakua  Mill  Co.,  13 
Hawaii  717;  Nakuaimanu  v.  Halstead,  4 
Hawaii  42. 

Illinois. —  Donason  r.  Barbero,  230  111.  138, 

82  N.  E.  620;  Waterman  Hall  t.  Waterman, 
220  111.  569,  77  N.  E.  142,  4  L.  R.  A.  N.  S. 
776;  Steele  v.  Steele,  220  111.  318,  77  N.  E. 
232;  Comer  v.  Comer,  IW  111.  170,  8  N.  E. 
796;  Cooter  v.  Dearborn,  115  111.  50«,  4  N.  E. 
388;  Stevens  v.  Wait,  112  111.  544;  NicoU  v. 
Scott,  99  111.  529;  Lavelle  f.  Strobel,  89  111. 
370;  Ball  v.  Palmer,  81  111.  370:  Buseh  v. 
Huston,  75  111.  343;  Xoble  v.  McFarland,  51 
111.  226. 

Indiana. — Wilmore  v.  Stetler,  137  Ind.  127, 
34  N.  E.  357,  36  N.  E.  856,  45  Am.  St.  Rep. 
169;  Myers  v.  Jackson,  136  Ind.  136,  34 
N.  E.  810;  Peden  r.  Cavins,  134  Ind.  494, 
34  N.  E.  7,  39  Am.  St.  Rep.  276;  English 
V.  Powell,  119  Ind.  93,  21  N.  E.  458; 
Bender  v.  Stewart,  75  Ind.  88 ;  Bowen  v. 
Preston,  48  Ind.  367;  Doe  v.  McCleary,  2 
Ind.  405. 

Iowa. —  Curtis  f.  Barber,  131  Iowa  400, 
108  N.  W.  755,  117  Am.  St.  Rep.  425;  Bader 
f.  Dyer,  106  Iowa  715,  77  N.  W.  469,  68  Am. 
St.  Rep.  332 ;  Van  Ormer  v.  Harley,  102  Iowa 
150,  71  N.  W.  241 ;  Smith  v.  Young,  89  Iowa 
338,  56  N.  W.  506;  Willcuts  f.  Rollins,  85 
Iowa  247,  52  N.  W.  199;  Sorenson  r.  Davis, 

83  Iowa  405,  49  N.  W.  1004;  Knowles  v. 
Brown,  69  Iowa  11,  28  N.  W.  409;  Laraway 
V.  Larue,  63  Iowa  407,  19  N.  W.  242 ;  Moore 
V.  Antill,  53  Iowa  612,  6  N.  W.  14;  Hume  v. 
Long,  53  Iowa  299,  5  N.  W.  193;  Burns  V. 
Byrne,  45  Iowa  285. 

[Ill,  C,  3,  b,  (I)] 


Kansas. —  Sparks  v.  Bodensick,  72  Kan.  5, 
82  Pac.  463. 

Kentucky. —  Bush  v.  Fitzgeralds,  (1910) 
125  S.  W.  716;  Kidd  V.  Bell,  (1900)  122 
S.  W.  232;  Hamilton  v.  Steele,  (1905)  117 
S.  W.  378;  Vermillion  v.  Nickell,  (1908)  114 
S.  W.  270;  Barret  v.  Coburn,  3  Mete.  510; 
Russell  V.  Mark,  3  Mete.  37 ;  Young  f.  Adams, 
14  B.  Mon.  127,  58  Am.  Dec.  654;  Gill  v. 
Fauntleroy,  8  B.  Mon.  177 ;  Taylor  V.  Cox,  2 
B.  Mon.  429;  Coleman  v.  Hutchenson,  3  Bibb 
209,  6  Am.  Dec.  649;  Baker  v.  Royal  Lead, 
etc.,  Co.,  107  S.  W.  704,  32  Ky.  L.  Rep.  982. 

Louisiana. —  Simon  v.  Richard,  42  La.  Ann. 
842,  8  So.  62fl;   Gosselin  v.  Abat,  3  La.  549. 

Maine. —  Mansfield  v.  McGinnis,  86  Me. 
118,  29  Atl.  956,  41  Am.  St.  Rep.  532;  Hud- 
son V.  Coe,  79  Me.  83,  8  Atl.  249,  1  Am.  St. 
Rep.  288;  Billings  v.  Gibbs,  55  Me.  238,  92 
Am.  Dec.  587;  Bird  v.  Bird,  40  Me.  398; 
Small  r.  Clifford,  38  Me.  213. 

Maryland. — Van  Bibber  t.  Frazier,  17  Md. 
436 ;  Lloyd  v.  Gordon,  2  Harr.  &  M.  254. 

Massachusetts. —  Joyce  r.  Dyer,  189  Mass. 
64,  75  N.  E.  81,  109  Am.  St.  Rep.  603;  Parker 
V.  Proprietors  of  Merrimack  River  Locks, 
etc.,  3  Mete.  91,  3  Am.  Dee.  121;  Burghardt 
V.  Turner,  12  Pick.  534. 

Michigan. —  Loranger  v.  Carpenter,  148 
Mich.  549,  112  N.  W.  125;  Weshgyl  r.  Schick, 
113  Mich.  22,  71  N.  W.  323 ;  Campau  v.  Cam- 
pau,  44  Mich.  31,  5  N.  W.  1062. 

Mississippi. —  Gardiner  v.  Hinton,  86  Miss. 
604,  38  So.  779,  109  Am.  St.  Rep.  726;  Bent- 
ley  V.  Callaghan,  79  Miss.  302,  30  So.  709; 
Jonas  r.  Flanniken,  69  Miss.  577,  11  So.  319. 

Missouri. —  Chapman  v.  KuUman,  191  Mo. 
237,  89  S.  W.  924;  Coberly  r.  Coberlv,  189 
Mo.  1,  87  S.  W.  957;  XJolden  v.  Tyer,  180  Mo. 
196,  79  S.  W.  143;  Whitaker  v.  Whitaker, 
157  Mo.  342,  58  S.  W.  5 ;  Benoist  v.  Roths- 
child, 145  Mo.  399,  46  S.  W.  1081 ;  Minton  v. 
Steele,  125  Mo.  181,  28  S.  W.  746 ;  Comstock 
V.  Eastwood,  108  Mo.  41,  18  S.  W.  39;  La 
Riviere  v.  la,  Riviere,  77  Mo.  512;  Warfield 
i:  Lindell,  38  Mo.  561,  90  Am.  Dec.  443; 
Robidoux  V.  Cassilegi,  10  Mo.  App.  516. 

Montana. — Ayotte  v.  Nadeau,  32  Mont.  498, 
81  Pac.  145;  Southmayd  v.  Southmayd,  4 
Mont.  100,  6  Pac.  318. 

New  Hampshire. — i  Brooks  V.  Fowle,  14 
N.  H.  248. 

New  Jersey. —  Foulke  v.  Bond,  41  N.  J.  li. 
527. 

New  York. —  Millard  r.  McMullin,  68  N.  Y. 
345;  MeroUa  l'.  Lane,  122  N.  Y.  App.  Div. 
535,  107  N.  Y.  Suppl.  439;  Hamershlag  v. 
Duryea,  38  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  130,  56  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  615;  Stoddard  v.  Weston,  3  Silv.  Sup. 
13,  6  N.  Y.  Suppl.  34;  Beat  v.  Miller,  3 
Thomps.  &  C.  6'64;  Oonstantine  v.  Van 
Winkle,  6  Hill  177;  Butler  i\  Phelps,  17 
Wend.  642 ;  Jackson  v.  Brink,  5  Cow.  483. 

North  Carolina. —  Mott  v.  Carolina  Land, 
etc.,  Co.,  146  N.  C.  525,  60  S.  E.  423;  Rhea 
f.  Craig,  141  N.  C.  602,  54  S.  E.  408;  Deans 
r.  Gay,  132  N.  C.  227,  43  S.  E.  643;  Hardee  r. 
Weathington,  130  N.  C.  91,  40  S.  E.  855; 
Shannon  V.  Lamb,   126  N.  C.  38,   35   S.  E. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  GycJ     29 


statute  of  limitations,  being  construed  more  strongly  against  him  than  such 


232;  Gay  lord  v.  Respass,  92  N.  C.  553;  With- 
row  V.  Biggerstaff,  82  N.  C.  82;  Day  f. 
Howard,  73  N.  C.  1;  Linker  r.  Benson,  67 
N.  C.  150;  Wagstaff  u.  Smith,  39  N.  C.  1; 
Anders  f.  Anders,  31  N.  C.  214  (holding  that 
the  rule  applies  even  in  the  case  of  a  tenant 
in  oommon  holding  over  after  a  partition)  ; 
Saunders  v.  Gatlin,  21  N.  C.  86;  Hargrove 
f.  Powell,  19  N.  C.  97.  See  also  Midford  v. 
Hardison,  7 '  N.  C.  164,  holding  that  mere 
adverse  possession  does  not  deprive  tenants 
in  common  of  right  of  entry.  Compare 
Cloud  V.  Webb,  15  N.  C.  290,  25  Am.  Dec. 
711. 

Ohio. —  Hogg  V.  Beerman,  41  Ohio  St.  81, 
52  Am.  Rep.  71;  Youngs  v.  Heffner,  36  Ohio 
St.  232 ;  Payne  v.  Cooksey,  8  Ohio  S.  &  C.  PI. 
Dec.  407,  7  Ohio  N.  P.  90. 

Oregon. —  Mattis  f.  Hosmer,  37  Oreg.  523, 
62  Pac.  17,  632;  Wheeler  v.  Taylor,  32  Oreg. 
421,  52  Pac.  183,  67  Am.  St.  Rep.  540. 

Pennsylvania. —  Maul  v.  Rider,  51  Pa.  St. 
337;  Tulloch  v.  Worrall,  49  Pa.  St.  133;  For- 
ward V.  Deetz,  32  Pa.  St.  69;  Keyser  v. 
Evans,  30  Pa.  St.  507;  Workman  v.  Guthrie, 
29  Pa.  St.  495,  72  Am.  Dec.  654;  Peck  v. 
Ward,  18  Pa.  St.  506;  Frederick  v.  Gray,  10 
Serg.  &  R.  182;  Richards  v.  Richards,  31 
Pa.  Super  Ct.  509;  Devlin's  Estate,  5  Pa. 
Dist.  125,  17  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  433,  12  Montg.  Co. 
Rep.  126. 

Porto  Rico. —  Soriano  V.  Arrese,  1  Porto 
Rico  Fed.  198. 

South  Carolina. —  Powers  f.  Smith,  80  S.  C. 
110,  61  S.  E.  222;  Green  v.  Cannady,  77  S.  C. 
193,  57  S.  E.  832;  Coleman  «.  Coleman,  71 
S.  C.  518,  51  S.  E.  250;  Burnett  f.  Craw- 
ford, 50  S.  C.  161,  27  S.  E.  645;  McGee  v. 
Hall,  26  S.  C.  179,  1  S.  E.  711;  Villard  v. 
Robert,  1  Strobh.  Eq.  393. 

South  Dakota. — 'Barrett  v.  McCarty,  20 
S.  D.  75,  104  N.  W.  907. 

Tennessee. —  Buck  v.  Williams,  10  Heisk. 
264;  Hilton  v.  Duncan,  1  Coldw.  313;  Elliott 
V.  Holder,  3  Head  698;  Hubbard  v.  Wood,  1 
Sneed  279;  Terrill  v.  Murry,  4  Yerg.  104; 
Gross  V.  Washington,  (Ch.  App.  1896)  38 
S.  W.  442. 

Texas. —  Broom  v.  Pearson,  98  Tex.  469,  85 
S.  W.  7-90,  86  S.  W.  733 ;  Phillipson  f.  Flynn, 
83  Tex.  580,  19  S.  W.  136;  McDougal  «. 
Bradford,  80  Tex.  558,  16  S.  W.  619;  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Prather,  75  Tex.  53,  12 
S.  W.  969;  Moody  v.  Butler,  63  Tex.  210; 
Peeler  v.  Guilkey,  27  Tex.  355 ;  Baily  v.  Tram- 
mell,  27  Tex.  317;  Alexander  v.  Kennedy,  19 
Tex.  488,  493,  70  Am.  Dee.  358;  Franks  v. 
Hancock,  1  Tex.  Unrep.  Cas.  554;  Niday  V. 
Cochran,  42  Tex.  Civ.  App.  292,  93  S.  W. 
1027;  Keith  v.  Keith,  39  Tex.  Civ.  App.  363, 
87  S.  W.  384;  Newcomb  v.  Cox,  27  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  583,  66  S.  W.  338 ;  Gist  v.  East,  16  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  274,  41  S.  W.  396;  House  f.  Wil- 
liams, 16  Tex.  Civ.  App.  122,  40  S.  W.  414; 
Garcia  v.  Illg,  14  Tex.  Civ.  App.  482,  37  S.  W. 
471;  Scofield  v.  Douglass,  (Tex.  Civ.  App. 
1895)  30  S.  W.  817;  Noble  v.  Hill,  8  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  171,  27  S.  W.  756 ;  Beall  v.  Evans, 
1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  443,  20  S.  W.  945. 


Vermont. —  Roberts  v.  Morgan,  30  Vt.  319; 
Buckmaster  v.  Needham,  22  Vt.  617;  Catlin 
V.  Kidder,  7  Vt.  12. 

Virginia. —  Pillow  v.  Southwest  Virginia 
Imp.  Co.,  92  Va.  144,  23  S.  E.  32,  53  Am.  St. 
Rep.  804;  Hannon  v.  Hannah,  9  Gratt.  146. 

Washington. —  Stone  v.  Marshall,  52  Wash. 
375,  100  Pac.  858. 

West  Virginia. —  Oneal  v.  Stimson,  61 
W.  Va.  551,  56  S.  E.  889;  Reed  v.  Bachmau, 
61  W.  Va.  452,  57  S.  E.  769,  123  Am.  St.  Rep. 
996 ;  Clark  V.  Beard,  59  W.  Va.  669,  53  S.  E. 
597;  Justice  t.  Lawson,  46  W.  Va.  163,  33 
S.  E.  102;  Cooey  t.  Porter,  22  W.  Va.  120; 
Boggess  V.  Meredith,  16  W.  Va.  1. 

Wisconsin. —  McCann  v.  Welch,  106  Wis. 
142,  81  N.  W.  996;  Saladin  t.  Kraayvanger, 
96  Wis.  180,  70  N.  W.  1113;  Stewart  v. 
Stewart,  83  Wis.  364,  53  N.  W.  686,  35  Am. 
St.  Rep.  67;  Sydnor  v.  Palmer,  29  Wis.  226. 
But  see  Roberts  v.  Decker,  120  Wis.  102,  97 
N.  W.  519,  holding  that  the  rule  that  mere 
possession  without  notice  is  not  adverse  has 
no  application  to  a  case  where  one  is  in  pos- 
session, under  a  claim  of  right  founded  on  a 
conveyance,  and  his  grantors  never  acknowl- 
edged or  knew  of  a  claim  of  cotenancy. 

United  States. —  Union  Consol.  Silver  Min. 
Co.  V.  Taylor,  100  U.  S.  37,  25  L.  eo.  541; 
Zeller  v.  Eckert  4  How.  289,  11  L.  ed.  979; 
Clymer  v.  Dawkins,  3  How.  674,  11  L.  ed.  778; 
Bradstreet  v.  Huntington,  5  Pet.  402,  8  L.  ed. 
170;  McClung  f.  Ross,  5  Wheat.  116,  5  L.  ed. 
46;  Elder  v.  McClaskey,  70  Fed.  529,  17 
C.  C.  A.  251  [reversing  47  Fed.  154]  (holding, 
however,  that  this  rule  has  no  application 
unless  the  possession  was  avowedly  begun  as 
that  of  a  tenant  in  common  or  under  a  deed 
■which  defined  the  possession  as  such)  ;  Van 
Gunden  v.  Virginia  Coal,  etc.,  Co.,  52  Fed. 
838,  3  C.  C.  A.  294 ;  Baker  v.  Whiting,  2  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  787,  3  Sumn.  475 ;  Dexter  v.  Arnold, 
7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,859,  2  Sumn.  152;  Scott  f. 
Evans,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,529,  1  McLean 
486. 

Canada. —  Doe  v.  Marks,  5  N.  Brunsw.  659 ; 
Harris  v.  Mudie,  7  Ont.  App.  414  [affirming 
30  U.  C.  C.  P.  484] ;  Hartley  v.  Maycock,  28 
Ont.  508;  Kennedy  v.  Bateman,  27  Grant 
Ch.  (U.  C.)  380;  Mason  v.  Norris,  18  Grant 
Ch.   (U.  C.)  500. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," |§  32,  49. 

The  question  of  ouster  is  usually  a  ques- 
tion for  the  jury.  Hambyf.  Folsam,  148  Ala. 
221,  42  So.  548;  LaFountain  v.  Dee,  110  Mich. 
347,  63  N.  W.  220;  Warfield  v.  Lindell,  38 
Mo.  561,  90  Am.  Dee.  443;  Beall  f.  Mc- 
Menemy,  63  Nebr.  70,  88  N.  W.  134,  93  Am. 
St.  Rep.  427;  Jackson  v.  Whitbeck,  6  Cow. 
(N.  Y.)  632,  16  Am.  Dec.  454;  Keyser  v. 
Evans,  30  Pa.  St.  507 ;  Blackmore  v.  Gregg,  2 
Watts  &  S.  (Pa.)  182;  Marr  v.  Gilliam,  1 
Coldw.  (Tenn.)  488;  Purcell  f.  Wilson,  4 
Gratt.  (Va.)  16.  The  jury  may  presume 
notice  from  facts  and  circumstances.  Carpen- 
tier  V.  Mendenhall,  28  Cal.  484,  87  Am.  Dec. 
135;  Rohrbach  v.  Sanders,  212  Pa.  St.  636,  62 
Atl.  27 ;  Peeler  v.  Guilkev,  27  Tex.  355 ;  Van 

[III,  C,  3,  b,  (I)] 


30     [38  Cyc] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


acts  and  declarations  would  have  been  construed  had  there  been  no  privity.^ 
Thus  acts  of  a  tenant  in  common  or  those  claiming  under  him,  in  relation  to  the 
common  property,  consistent  with  his  interests  by  virtue  of  the  cotenancy  therein, 
cannot  give  rise  to  the  presumption  of  an  adverse  possession  as  against  his 
cotenants,*  and  the  entry  and  possession  of  one  cotenant  being  ordinarily  deemed 

not  adverse  to  them,  unless  notice  is  clearly 
brought  to  them  that  he  claims  the  entire 
tract  as  exclusive  owner,  and  unless  his 
previous  actual  possession  and  cultivation  of 
a  small  part  of  the  tract  was  such  as  to  sup- 
port the  statute  of  limitations  as  to  the  en- 
tire tract.  Hess  f.  Webb,  (Tex.  Civ.  App. 
1908)    113  S.  W.  018. 

An  infant  is  not  chargeable  with  notice. 
Northrop  f.  Marquam,  16  Oreg.  173,  18  Pac. 
449. 

Where  a  tenant  in  common  of  land  enters 
thereon  and  cuts  timber,  he  is  presumed  to 
enter  under  his  legal  title,  there  being  no 
evidence  of  any  ouster  of  the  cotenants. 
Whiting  f.  Dewey,  15  Pick.  (Mass.)  428; 
Shumway  v.  Holbrook,  1  Pick.  (Mass.)  114, 
11  Am.  Dec.  153;  Strong  f.  Richardson,  19  Vt. 
194.  Where  a  cotenant  pays  taxes  on  the 
common  land,  takes  timber  therefrom  and 
feeds  cattle  thereon,  such  acts  are  consistent 
with  his  interest  therein  and  hence  do  not 
constitute  adverse  possession  as  against  his 
cotenant.  McQuiddy  t.  Ware,  67  Mo.  74; 
Griffies  v.  Griffies,  8  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  758,  11 
Wkly.  Rep.  943. 

3.  Connecticut. —  Newell  v.  Woodruff,  30 
Conn.  492. 

Illinois. —  Ball  v.  Palmer,  81  111.  370. 

KentiicTcy. —  Barret  r.  Coburn,  3  Jletc.  510. 

Maryland. — ^Van  Bibber  r.  Frazier,  17  Md. 
436. 

Massachusetts. —  Burghardt  v.  Turner,  12 
Pick.  534. 

North  Carolina. —  Tharpe  r.  Holcomb,  126 
N.  C.  365,  35  S.  E.  608. 

Oregon. —  Minter  v.  Durnham,  13  Oreg. 
470,  11  Pac.  231. 

Pennsylvania. —  Forward  v.  Deetz,  32  Pa. 
St.  69;  Peck  v.  Ward,  18  Pa.  St.  506. 

Texas. — Alexander  v.  Kennedy,  19  Tex. 
488,  70  Am.  Dec.  358;  Franks  v.  Hancock,  1 
Tex.  XJnrep.  Cas.  554;  Garcia  v.  Illg,  14  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  482,  37  S.  W.  471 ;  Noble  v.  Hill, 
8  Tex.  Civ.  App.  171,  27  S.  W.  756. 

Wisconsin. —  Challefoux  v.  Ducharme,  8 
Wis.  287. 

4.  California. —  Christy  v.  Spring  Valley 
Water  Works,  97  Cal.  21,  31  Pac.  1110;  Tab- 
ler  1-.  Peverill,  4  Cal.  App.  671,  88  Pac.  994. 

Connecticut. — White  v.  Beckwith,  62  Conn. 
79,  25  Atl.  400. 

Illinois. —  Brumback  v.  Brumback,  198  111. 
66,  64  N.  E.  741 ;  Blackaby  i:  Blackaby,  185 
111.  94,  56  N.  E.  1053 ;  McMahill  v.  Torrence, 
163  III.  277,  45  N.  E.  269. 

Indiana. —  Sanford  v.  Tucker,  54  Ind.  219.' 

JoMJa.— Frye  v.  Gullion,  143  Iowa  719,  121 
N.  W.  563;  German  v.  Heath,  139  Iowa  52, 
116  N.  W.  1061. 

Massachusetts. —  Ingalls  v.  Newhall,  139 
Mass.  268,  30 _N.  E.  96  (where  the  erection 
of  a  light,  easily  removable  structure  by  one 
of  the  cotenants,  with  a,  pump  within  a  sur- 


Gunden  v.  Virginia  Coal,  etc.,  Co.,  62  Fed. 
838,  3  C.  C.  A.  294.  And  if  the  tendency 
of  the  alleged  acts  be  such  that  a  jury  may 
fairly  infer  therefrom  an  intention  to  oust 
the  other  cotenants,  all  other  requisites  con- 
curring, such  acts  may  be  held  to  be  acts  of 
ouster  or  disseizin.  Zapf  v.  Carter,  70  App. 
Div.  396,  75  N.  Y.  Suppl.  197. 

Water  rights  see  Shannon  v.  Lamb,  126 
N.  C.  38,  35  S.  E.  232;  Mattis  v.  Hosmer,  37 
Oreg.  523,  62  Pac.  17,  632;  Justice  v.  Law- 
son,  46  W.  Va.  163,  33  S.  E.  102;  McCann  v. 
Welch,  106  Wis.  142,  81  N.  W.  996.  The 
erection  of  a  wharf  by  one  cotenant  on  a  por- 
tion of  a  water  lot  owned  in  common, 
and  his  sole  occupancy  of  the  wharf,  amounts 
to  an  ouster,  because  the  structure  is  in  its 
nature  permanent  and  is  suited  for  only  one 
purpose  and  is  essentially  a  unit  and  in- 
canable  of  separate  occupancy.  Annely  v. 
De  Saussure,  26  S.  C.  4«7,  2  S.  E.  490,  40 
Am.  St.  Rep.  725;  Zwicker  f.  Morash,  34 
Nova  Scotia  655. 

But  the  vendee  of  a  tenant  in  common  set- 
ting up  a  claim  in  his  own  right  to  the  whole 
tract  of  land  is  in  no  relation  to  the  tenants 
in  common  or  those  claiming  under  them, 
imposing  on  him  the  obligation  of  giving 
notice  either  actually  or  constructively  as  a 
condition  precedent  to  the  assertion  of  a 
hostile  claim.  Gardiner  r.  Hinton,  86  Miss. 
604,  109  Am.  St.  Rep.  726,  38  So.  779. 

A  declaration  of  such  intention  to  a. 
stranger  is  not  sufficient  unless  brought  to 
the  knowledge  of  the  cotenant  sought  to  be 
ousted.  Loranger  v.  Carpenter,  148  Mich. 
549,  112  N.  W.  125;  Warfield  t".  Lindell,  30 
Mo.  272,  77  Am.  Dec.  614. 

A  tenant  in  common  holding  the  common 
property  mistakenly,  believing  herself  to  be 
the  sole  owner,  her  cotenants  sharing  said 
belief,  holds  adversely.  Wheeler  v.  Taylor, 
32  Oreg.  421,  52  Pac.  183,  67  Am.  St.  Rep. 
540. 

An  actual  verbal  claim  of  adverse  owner- 
ship to  a,  cotenant  personally  is  not  necessary 
to  prove  an  ouster  by  one  in  possession  doing 
overt  acts  indicating  a  hostile  claim.  Casey 
V.  Casey,  107  Iowa  192,  77  N.  W.  844,  70  Am. 
St.  Rep.  190 ;  Dunlap  v.  Griffith,  146  Mo.  283, 
47  S.  W.  917. 

Taking  with  knowledge  of  cotenancy. — 
Where  a  grantee  takes  title  with  knowledge, 
and  in  recognition  of  the  existing  cotenancy, 
even  on  condition  that  the  part  of  the  land 
that  he  has  taken  shall  be  subsequently  par- 
titioned to  him,  such  taking  will  merely  have 
the  same  effect  as  if  said  possession  had  been 
so  taken  by  the  vendor  himself.  Chiles  v. 
Jones,  7  Dana  (Ky.)  528. 

A  purchaser  of  the  interest  of  an  heir  in  a 
tract  of  land  of  the  deceased  ancestor  be- 
comes a  tenant  in  common  with  the  other 
heirs,  and  after  his  purchase  his  possession  is 

[III,  C,  3,  b,  (I)] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc]    31 


the  entry  and  possession  of  all,  mere  possession  by  one  cotenant  cannot  operate 
as  an  ouster  or  disseizin  as  against  his  cotenants,^  even  when  attended  with  the 


rounding  wall,  his  leasing, of  the  structure, 
collecting  of  the  rents  and  payment  of  the 
taxes  was  held  not  to  amount  to  an  ouster 
of  the  other  cotenants,  who  used  the  house 
and  pump  as  they  found  convenient)  ;  Burg- 
hardt  V.  Turner,  12  Pick.  534  (holding  that 
it  requires  very  clear  evidence  of  the  adverse 
possession  of  uninclosed  woodland  to  raise 
a  presumption  of  ouster)  ;  Higbee  i.  Rice,  5 
Mass.  344,  4  Am.  Dec.  63. 

Michigan. —  Pierson  v.  Conley,  95  Mich. 
619,  55  N.  W.  387. 

Mississippi. — Alsobrook  v.  Eggleston,  69 
Miss.  833,  13i  So.  850. 

Missouri. —  McQuiddy  f.  Ware,  67  Mo.  74. 

South  Dakota. —  Barrett  t".  McCarty,  20 
S.  D.  76,  104  N.  W.  907. 

Texas. —  Madison  v.  Matthews,  (Civ.  App. 
1902)  66  S.  W.  803;  Garcia  v.  Illg,  14  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  482,  37  S.  W.  471. 

Virginia. —  Lagoria  v.  Dozier,  91  Va.  492, 
22  S.  E.  239;  Hannon  v.  Hannah,  9  Gratt. 
146. 

West  yirginia. —  Clark  v.  Beard,  59'  W.  Va. 
669,  53  S.  E.  597. 

United  States.  — ^McClaskeyr.  Barr,  47  Fed. 

154  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  70  Fed. 
529,  17  C.  C.  A.  251]. 

But  evidence  of  such  acts  is  competent  to 
go  to  the  jury  where  the  issue  is  one  of  ad- 
verse possession.  Ashford  v.  Ashford,  136 
Ala.  631,  34  So.  10,  96  Am.  St.  Eep.  82; 
Robidoux  V.  Cassilegi,  10  Mo.  App.  516; 
Susquehanna,  etc.,  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Quick,  61 
Pa.  St.  328 ;  Bolton  v.  Hamilton,  2  Watts  & 
S.   (Pa.)  294,  37  Am.  Dec.  509. 

The  derivation  of  benefit  from  the  common 
property,  by  a  tenant  in  common,  without 
in  any  way  interfering  with  his  cotenant's  use 
or  enjoyment  thereof,  or  in  any  way  affecting 
its  value,  neither  gives  rise  to  a  presumption 
of  adverse  use,  nor  is  such  cotenant  entitled 
to  an  accounting.  Ragan  v.  McCoy,  29  Mo. 
356;  Howe  Scale  Co.  «.  Terry,  47  Vt.  109. 

5.  Alabama. —  Cramton  v.  Rutledge,  156 
Ala.    141,   47   So.   214;   Layton  V.   Campbell, 

155  Ala.  220,  46  So.  775,  130  Am.  St.  Rep. 
17;  Inglis  f.  W«bb,  117  Ala.  387,  23  So.  125. 

California. —  McCauley  v.  Harvey,  49  Cal. 
497  (holding  that  undisturbed  possession  as 
a  tenant  in  common  without  acts  of  exclu- 
sion, equivalent  to  an  ouster,  is  insufficient 
to  create  the  benefit  of  the  statute  of  limi- 
tations) ;  Owen  V.  Morton,  24  Cal.  373.  Com- 
pare Alvarado  v.  Nordholt,  95  Cal.  116,  30 
Pac.  211. 

Delaware. —  Milbourn  v.  David,  7  Houst. 
209',  30  Atl.  971. 

Georgia. —  Morgan  v.  Mitchell,  104  Ga. 
596,  30  S.  E.  792. 

Illinois. —  Carpenter  v.  Fletcher,  230  111. 
440,  88  N.  E.  162. 

Indiana. —  Peden  t:  Cavins,  134  Ind.  494, 
34  N.  E.  7,  39  Am.  St.  Rep.  276. 

Iowa. —  Sires  v.  Melvin,  135  Iowa  460,  113 
N.  W.  106;  Casey  v.  Casey,  107  Iowa  192, 
77  N.  W.  844,  70  Am.  St.  Rep.   190;  Bader 


V.  Dyer,  106  Iowa  715,  77  N.  W.  469,  68  Am. 
St.  Rep.  332 ;  Van  Ormer  v.  Harley,  102  Iowa 
150.,  71  N.  W.  241;  Smith  i;.  Young,  89  Iowa 
338,  56  N.  W.  506;  Alexander  V.  Sully,  50 
Iowa  192;  Flock  v.  Wyatt,  49  Iowa  466. 
Kamsas. —  Rand  f.  Huff,  6  Kan.  App.  922, 

51  Pac.  577  {affirmed  in  (1898)  53  Pac.  483]. 
Kentucky. —  Greenhill  v.  Biggs,  85  Ky.  155, 

2  S.  W.  774,  8  Ky.  L.  Rep.  825,  7  Am.  St. 
Rep.  579;  McSurley  v.  Venters,  104  S.  W. 
365,  31  Ky.  L.  Rep.  963. 

Maine. —  Mansfield  v.  McGinniss,  86  Me. 
118,  29  Atl.  956,  41  Am.  St.  Rep.  532;  Col- 
burn  v.  Mason,  25  Me.  434,  43  Am.  Dec.  292. 

Massachusetts. —  Joyce  v.  Dyer,  189  Mass. 
64,  75  N.  E.  81,  109  Am.  St.  Rep.  603. 

Michigan. —  Dahlem  v.  Abbott,  146  Mich. 
605,  110  N.  W.  47;  Nowlen  v.  Hall,  128  Mich. 
274,  87  N.  W.  222;  Weshgyl  v.  Schick,  113 
Mich.  22,  71  N.  W.  323. 

Minnesota. —  Lindley  f.  Groff,  37  Minn. 
338,  34  N.  W.  26;  Berthold  v.  Fox,  13  Minn. 
501,  97  Am.  Dec.  243. 

Mississippi. —  Her  v.  Routh,  3  How.  276. 

Missouri. —  Seibert  v.  Hope,  221  Mo.  630, 
120  S.  W.  770;  Dunlap  v.  Griffith,  146  Mo. 
283,  47  S.  W.  917;  Long  v.  McDow,  87  Mo. 
197;  Warfield  v.  Lindell,  30  Mo.  272,  77.  Am. 
Dec.  614. 

New  York. —  Kathan  v.  Rockwell,  16  Hun 
90;  Northrop  v.  Wright,  24  Wend.  221;  Clapp 
V.  Bromagham,  9  Cow.  304;  Jackson  V. 
Tibbits,  9  Cow.  241. 

North  Carolina. —  Rhea  v.  Craig,  141  N.  C. 
602,  54  S.  E.  408;  Day  v.  Howard,  73  N.  C.  1. 

Oregon. — Wheeler  v.  Taylor,  32  Greg.  421, 

52  Pac.  183,  67  Am.  St.  Rep.  540. 
Pennsylvania. —  Peck  f.  Ward,   18  Pa.  St. 

506;  Berg  v.  McLafferty,  9  Pa.  Cas.  135,  12 
Atl.  460. 

Porto  Rico. —  Ortiz  Rodriguez  v.  Vivoni, 
1  Porto  Rico  Fed.  487,  489. 

South  Carolina.- —  Coleman  v.  Coleman,  71 
S.  C.  518,  51  S.  E.  250;  Burnett  v.  Crawford, 
50  S.  C.  161,  27  S.  E.  645;  Metz  v.  Metz,  48 
S.  C.  472,  26  S.  E.  787;  Gray  v.  Givena, 
Riley  Eq.  41,  2  Hill  Eq.  511.  But  see  Powers 
V.  Smith,  80  S.  C.  110,  61  S.  E.  222. 

Tennessee. —  Smith  v.  Kincaid,  10  Humphr. 
73. 

Texas. —  Illg  v.  Garcia,  92  Tex.  251,  47 
S.  W.  717;  Gist  v.  East,  16  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
274,  41  S.  W.  396;  House  v.  Williams,  16 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  122,  40  S.  W.  414;  Noble  V. 
Hill,  8  Tex.  Civ.  App.  171,  27  S.  W.  756. 

Vermont. —  Buckmaster  r.  Needham,  22  Vt. 
617;  Catlin  v.  Kidder,  7  Vt.  12. 

Virginia. —  Johnston  V.  Virginia  Coal,  etc., 
Co.,  96  Va.  158,  31  S.  E.  85;  Fry  v.  Payne, 
82  Va.  759,  1  S.  E.  197. 

West  Virginia. —  Russell  l'.  Tennant,  63 
W.  Va.  623,  60  S.  E.  609,  129  Am.  St.  Rep. 
1024;  Oneal  v.  Stimson,  61  W.  Va.  551,  56 
S.  E.  889;  Logan  v.  Ward,  58  W.  Va.  366, 
52  S.  E.  398,  5  L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  156;  Justice 
V.  Lawson,  46  W.  Va.  163,  33  S.  E.  102; 
Davis  V.  Settle,  43  W.  Va.  17,  26  S.  E.  557. 

[Ill,  C,  3,  b,  (I)] 


32     [38  Cyc] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON' 


exclusive  receipt  of  rents  and  profits,*  and  mere  lapse  of  time  or  mere  delay  on 
the  part  of  a  tenant  in  common  not  in  possession,  in  failing  to  demand  admission 
to  joint  possession  or  a  share  of  the  rents  and  profits,  is  not  sufficient  to  evidence 
an  adverse  holding  by  the  one  in  possession.'  But  very  long  undisturbed  posses- 
sion may  give  rise  to  such  a  presumption  of  ouster  or  grant  as  between  cotenants 
as  to  warrant  the  submission  of  the  question  of  ouster  to  the  jury,*  and  ouster 


Canada. —  Meyers  v.  Doyle,  9  U.  C.  C.  P. 
371.     See  Hill  v.  Grander,  1  U.  C.  Q.  B.  3. 

6.  Georgia. —  Morgan  f.  Mitchell,  104  Ga. 
596,  30  S.  E.  792. 

Illinois. —  Carpenter  v.  Fletcher,  239  111. 
440,  88  N.  E.  162;  Todd  f.  Todd,  117  111.  92, 
7  N.  E.  583. 

Uassaohusetts. —  Higbee  v.  Eice,  5  Mass. 
344,  4  Am.  Dec.  63. 

Missouri. —  Rodney  v.  McLaughlin,  97  Mo. 
426,  9  S.  W.  726;  Warfield  K.  Lindell,  30 
Mo.  272,  77  Am.  Dec.  614. 

Pennsylvania. —  Lewitzky  v.  Sotoloff,  224 
Pa.  St.  610,  73  Atl.  936;  Bolton  v.  Hamilton, 
2  Watts  &  S.  294,  37  Am.  Dec.  509;  Morris 
f .  Vanderen,  1  Dall.  64,  1  L.  ed.  38 ;  Sanders' 
Estate,  41  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  77.  Compare  Milli- 
ken  V.  Brown,  10  Serg.  &  R.  188. 

South  Carolina. —  McGee  f.  Hall,  26  S.  C. 
179,  1  S.  E.  711. 

Texas. — Alexander  v.  Kennedy,  19  Tex.  488, 
70  Am.  Dec.  358. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  36. 

But  it  is  evidence  to  go  to  the  jury  upon 
that  point.  Bolton  f.  Hamilton,  2  Watts  &  S. 
(Pa.)  294,  37  Am.  Dec.  509.  And  allowing 
a  tenant  in  common  to  he  in  exclusive  pos- 
session and  to  so  receive  the  rents  and  profits 
of  the  common  property  to  his  own  use  with- 
out accounting  for  a  long  time  has  been  held 
sufScient  for  a  presumption  of  an  actual 
ouster  by  the  jury.  Eobidoux  v.  Cassilegi, 
10  Mo.  App.  516. 

The  use  of  waters  owned  in  common,  by 
one  of  the  cotenants  therein,  will  be  pre- 
sumed to  be  in  maintenance  of  and  not  ad- 
verse to  the  relationship  of  cotenancy.  Moss 
r.  Rose,  27  Oreg.  595,  41  Pac.  666,  50  Am.  St. 
Rep  743.  But  see  Adams  f.  Manning,  51 
Conn.  5.  In  a  suit  between  cotenants  for 
damages  caused  by  water  escaping  from  the 
common  premises,  there  is  no  presumption, 
between  them,  of  its  exclusive  occupancy,  in 
the  absence  of  evidence  of  such  occupancy,  as 
they  are  each  equally  entitled  thereto.  Moore 
V.  Goedel,  34  N.  Y.  527  [affirmihg  7  Bosw.  591]. 

7.  California. — Plass  v.  Plass,  121  Cal.  131, 
53  Pac.  448. 

Connecticut. —  Bryan  v.  Atwater,  5  Day 
181,  5  Am.  Dec.  136. 

Delaware. —  See  Milbourn  v.  David,  7 
Houst.  209,  30  Atl.  971.     . 

/Hinois.— Ball   v.   Palmer,   81   111.   370. 

Indiana. —  Peden  v.  Cavins,  134  Ind.  494, 
34  N.  E.  7,  39  Am.  St.  Rep.  276;  Manchester 
t.  Doddridge,  3  Ind.  360. 

Iowa. —  Bader  f.  Dyer,  106  Iowa  715,  77 
N.  W.  469,  68  Am.  St.  Rep.  332;  Flock  v. 
Wyatt,  49  Iowa  466;  Burns  v.  Byrne,  45 
Iowa  285. 

Kentucky. —  Chambers  v.  Pleak,  6  Dana 
426,  32  Am.  Deo.  78. 

[Ill,  C,  3.  b,  (I)] 


Louisiana. —  Simon  v.  Richard,  42  La.  Ann. 
842,  8  So.  629. 

Massachusetts. —  Le  Favour  v.  Homan,  3 
Allen  354;  Parker  v.  Proprietors  Merrimack 
River  Locks,  etc.,  3  Mete.  91,  37  Am.  Dec. 
121;  Rickard  f.  Eickard,  13  Pick.  251. 

Michigan. —  La  Fountain  v.  Dee,  110  Mich. 
347,  68  N.  W.  220;  Dubois  V.  Campau,  28 
Mich.  304.  Compare  Campau  v.  Dubois,  39 
Mich.  274. 

ilfissoMri.— Warfield  v.  Lindell,  38  Mo.  661, 
90  Am.  Dec.  443 ;  Warfield  v.  Lindell,  30  Mo. 
272,  77  Am.  Dec.  614;  Robidoux  t.  Cassilegi, 
10  Mo.  App.  516. 

New  York. —  Abrams  v.  Rhoner,  44  Hun 
507;  Woolsey  v.  Morss,  19  Hun  273;  Kathan 
V.  Rockwell,  16  Hun  90;  Butler  v.  Phelps, 
17  Wend.  642;  Jackson  f.  Whitbeck,  6  Cow. 
632,  16  Am.  Dec.  454;  Vandyck  v.  Van 
Beuren,  1  Cai.  84. 

North  Carolina. —  Mott  v.  Carolina  Land, 
etc.,  Co.,  146  K  C.  525,  60  S.  E.  423;  Whitaker 
V.  Jenkins,  138  N.  C.  476,  51  S.  E.  104; 
Woodlief  V.  Woodlief,  136  N.  C.  133,  48  S.  E. 
583;  Locklear  v.  Bullard,  133  N.  C.  260,  45 
S.  E.  580;  Page  v.  Branch,  97  N.  C.  97,  1 
S.  E.  625,  2  Am.  St.  Rep.  281;  Lafoon  v. 
Shearin,  95  N.  C.  391;  Neely  v.  Neely,  79 
N.  C.  478;  Covington  v.  Stewart,  77  N.  C. 
148;  Day  v.  Howard,  73  N.  C.  1 ;  Linker  v. 
Benson,  67  N.  C.  150;  Thomas  i:.  Garvan,  15 
N.  C.  223,  25  Am.  Dec.  708. 

0/ito.— Schulte  V.  Beineka,  6  Ohio  S.  &  C. 
PI.  Dec.  529,  4  Ohio  N.  P.  207. 

Pennsylvania. — 'Rider  v.  Maul,  46  Pa.  St. 
376;  Workman  r.  Guthrie,  29  Pa.  St.  495, 
72  Am.  Dec.  654;  Bolton  v.  Hamilton,  2 
Watts  &  S.  294,  37  Am.  Deo.  509;  Mehafi'v 
f.  Dobbs,  9  Watts  363;  Frederick  v.  Gray,  10 
Serg.  &  R.  182;  Carothers  v.  Dunning,  3  Serg. 
&  R.  373. 

South  Carolina. — ^Villard  v.  Robert,  1 
Strobh.  Eq.  393;  Gray  v.  Givens,  Riley  Eq. 
41,  2  Hill  Eq.  511. 

Tennessee. —  Marr  v.  Gilliam,  1  Coldw.  488. 

Texas. —  Gray  v.  KaufFman,  82  Tex.  65,  17 
S.  W.  613. 

Virginia. —  Purcell  v.  Wilson,  4  Gratt.  16. 

West  Virginia. —  Reed  v.  Bachman,  61 
W.  Va.  452,  57  S.  E.  769,  123  Am.  St.  Rep. 
996;  Logan  v.  Ward,  58  W.  Va.  366,  52  S.  E. 
398,  5  L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  156;  Parker  v.  Brast, 
45  W.  Va.  399,  32  S.  E.  269. 

Wisconsin. —  Sydnor  v.  Palmer,  29  Wis. 
226. 

England. —  Culley  v.  Doe,  11  A.  &  E.  1008, 
9  L.  J.  Q.  B.  283,  3  P.  &  D.  539,  39  E.  C.  L. 
527;  Doe  v.  Prosser,  Cowp.  217,  98  Eng. 
Reprint  1062. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  33. 

8.  Susquehanna,  etc.,  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Quick, 
61  Pa.  St.  328. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  CycJ     33 


may  be  proven  by  a  claim  of  exclusive  right  accompanying  possession,"  as  where 
the  adverse  character  of  the  possession  of  the  one  is  actually  known  to  the  others, 
or  where  it  is  so  open  and  notorious  in  its  hostility  and  exclusiveness  as  to  put 
the  others  on  notice,'"  and  an  entry  upon  the  whole  of  the  land  by  one  tenant  in 
common  who  takes  exclusive  possession  of  the  entire  property  and  receives  the 
rents,  income,  and  profits  thereof,  without  accounting  for  any  part  thereof,  or 
any  demand  upon  him  so  to  do,  under  circumstances  evidencing  an  intention 
to  claim  sole  ownership,  amounts  to  an  actual  ouster."  If  the  occupancy  or 
possession  of  the  common  property  is  permissive  or  under  an  agreement,  express 
or  implied,  between  the  cotenants,  recognizing  the  rights  of  the  cotenants  not  in 
possession,"  or  if  there  be  no  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  a  cotenancy,"  or  if 


9.  Alabama,. —  Layton  t.  Campbell,  155 
Ala.  220,  46  So.  775,  130  Am.  St.  Kep.  17; 
Ashford  f.  Asliford,  136  Ala.  631,  34  So.  10, 
96  Am.  St.  Eep.  82;  Johnson  f.  Toulmin,  18 
Ala.  50,  52  Am.  Dec.  212. 

Iowa. —  Knowles  f.  Brown,  69  Iowa  11,  28 
N.  W.  409. 

Kentucky. —  <xill  v.  Fauntleroy,  8  B.  Mon. 
177. 

Moi«e.— Small  v.  Clifford,  38  Me.  213. 

Texas. —  Illg  v.  Garcia,  92  Tex.  251,  47 
S.  W.  717. 

10.  Oliver  v.  Williams,  163  Ala.  376,  50 
So.  937;  Ashford  v.  Ashford,  136  Ala.  631, 
34  So.  10,  96  Am.  St.  Rep.  82;  Weshgyl  v. 
Schick,  113  Mich.  22,  71  N.  W.  323;  Misen- 
heimer  v.  Amos,  221  Mo.  362,  120  S.  W.  602; 
Cox  V.  Tompkinson,  39  Wash.  70,  80  Pae. 
1005. 

11.  Alabama. —  Johnson  v.  Toulmdn,  18 
Ala.  50,  52  Am.  Dec.  212. 

California. —  Owen  v.  Morton,  24  Cal.  373. 

Missouri. —  Nalle  v.  Parks,  173  Mo.  616, 
73  S.  W.  596;  Warfield  v.  Lindell,  38  Mo. 
561,  90  Am.  Dec.  443. 

Montana. —  Harrigan  v.  Lynch,  21  Mont. 
36,  52  Pac.  642. 

New  York. —  Woolsey  v.  Morss,  19  Hun 
273;  Jackson  v.  Whitbeck,  6  Cow.  632,  16 
Am.  Dec.  454. 

North  Carolina. —  Dobbins  v.  Dobbins,  141 
N.  C.  210,  -53  S.  E.  870,  US  Am.  St.  Eep.  682; 
Covington  v.  Stewart,  77  N.  C.  148 ;  Black  v. 
Lindsay,  44  N.  C.  467. 

Pennsylvania. —  Rider  v.  Maul,  46  Pa.  St. 
376;  Workman  v.  Guthrie,  29  Pa.  St.  495,  72 
Am.  Dec.  654;  Law  v.  Patterson,  1  Watts 
&  S.  184;  Mehaffy  v.  Dobbs,  9  Watts  363. 

Tennessee. — Marr  v.  Gilliam,  1  Coldw.  488; 
Hubbard  v.  Wood,  1  Sneed  279. 

West  Virginia. —  Eodgers  v.  Miller,  55 
W.  Va.  576,  47  S.  E.  354. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  36. 

Taking  and  recording  a  deed.— If  the  co- 
tenant  in  possession  takes  and  records  a 
deed  to  the  whole  property  from  a  stranger, 
such  act  will  not  constitute  an  ouster  un- 
less accompanied  by  a  hostile  claim  of  which 
the  cotenants  out  of  possession  have  knowl- 
edge, and  by  such  acts  of  possession  as  are 
inconsistent  with  the  continuance  of  a 
cotenancy.  Winterburn  i\  Chambers,  91 
Cal.  170,  27  Pac.  658;  Towery  v.  Henderson, 
60  Tex.  291,  297  [citing  3  Washburn  Real 
Prop.   (14th  ed.)  p.  142];  Holley  v.  Hawley, 

[3] 


39  Vt.  525,  94  Am.  Dec.  350.  But  pos- 
session of  one  tenant  in  common,  assert- 
ing an  exclusive  right  to  the  land  under  a 
deed  conveying  the  same  to  him  by  specific 
description,  is  adverse  to  his  cotenants  hav- 
ing notice  of  the  deed  by  registration.  Mor- 
gan V.  White,  50  Tex.  Civ.  App.  318,  110 
S.  W.  491.  And  possession  of  a  specific  part 
of  a  tract  of  land  under  a  deed  to  such  spe- 
cific portion  is  notice  to  the  occupant's  co- 
tenants  of  the  larger  tract  that  he  is  holding 
such  specific  portion  adversely  to  them.  Toole 
i:  Eenfro,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1908)  114  S.  W. 
450. 

Operation  of  a  mine  without  the  consent 
of  the  operator's  cotenants  therein,  and  ap- 
propriation of  the  proceeds  without  an  ac- 
counting thereof,  will  constitute  ouster  and 
adverse  possession.  Harrigan  v.  Lynch,  21 
Mont.   36,  52  Pac.  642. 

12.  Curtis  V.  Barber,  131  Iowa  400,  108 
N.  W.  755,  117  Am.  S>t.  Eep.  425;  Old  South 
Soc.  V.  Wainwright,  156  Mass.  115,  30  N.  E. 
476;  Winter  v.  Stevens,  9  Allen  (Mass.) 
526. 

If  there  are  any  facts  showing  the  recogni- 
tion of  a  cotenancy,  by  the  tenant  in  com- 
mon claiming  adversely,  such  recognition 
should  be  construed  most  strongly  in  favor 
of  the  other  cotenant.  Van  Ormer  v.  Har- 
ley,  102  Iowa  150,  71  N.  W.  241;  Mead  v. 
Mead,  82  S.  W.  598,  26  Ky.  L.  Eep.  777; 
Puller  V.  Swensberg,  106  Mich.  305,  64  N.  W. 
463,  58  Am.  St.  Eep.  481;  Hutson  v.  Hutson, 
139  Mo.  229,  40  S.  W.  886 ;  Burnett  v.  Craw- 
ford, 50  S.  C.  161,  27  S.  E.  645;  Metz  v.  Metz, 
48  S.  C.  472,  26  S.  E.  787.  But  where  ad- 
verse possession  has  ripened  into  title,  rec- 
ognition of  title  in  the  former  owner  will 
not  operate  to  revest  title  in  him.  Cole  v. 
Lester,  48  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  13,  96  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
67.  Thus  the  title  acquired  by  adverse  pos- 
session is  not  affected  by  a  subsequent  offer 
by  the  adverse  possessor  to  buy  the  out- 
standing title.  Frick  v.  Simon,  75  Cal.  337, 
17  Pac.  439,  7  Am.  St.  Eep.  177. 

13.  Van  Bibber  v.  Frazier,  17  Md.  436; 
Allen  f.  Carter,  8  Pick.  (Mass.)  175;  Wheeler 
t\  Taylor,  32  Oreg.  421,  52  Pac.  183,  67  Am. 
St.  Eep.  540;  Johnson  v.  Burslem,  2  L.  J. 
Ch.  0.  S.  168,  26  Rev.  Eep.  212. 

But  a  good  title  by  adverse  possession  may 
be  acquired  by  the  grantee  of  one  cotenant 
believing  that  he  has  acquired  the  sole  owner- 
ship of  the  property  by  virtue  of  said  grant, 
and  so  occupying  said  property  to  the  knowl- 

[III,  C,  3.  ta.  (I)] 


84     [38  Cye.] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


damage  arising  from  an  unauthorized  use  of  the  property  may  be  considered  of 
but  very  slight  or  no  consequence,  so  that  it  is  equivocal  whether  or  not  there 
was  an  intention  to  commit  an  ouster,"  such  acts  will  not  be  regarded  as  acts 
of  disseizin.  Possession  under  adverse  claim  may  be  proven  by  parol,  although, 
under  statutes  requiring  certain  formalities  in  the  conveyance  of  land,  such 
evidence  may  not  be  sufficient  to  prove  title. ^^ 

(ii)  Unauthorized  Conveyance  of  More  Than  Coten ant's  Share 
AS  Ouster.  An  unauthorized  or  unratified  sale  or  conveyance  of  the  whole 
property  or  any  specific  part  thereof  by  metes  and  bounds  by  one  tenant  in  com- 
mon, followed  by  entry  by  the  grantee  thereunder  and  his  exclusive  possession 
thereof,  under  adverse  claim  of  title  to  the  whole  or  some  specific  part  by  metes 
and  bounds,  amounts  to  an  ouster  of  the  other  cotenants/"  and  such  a  conveyance 


edg«  of  his  cotenant.      Laraway  v.  Larue,  63 
Iowa  407,  19  N.  W.  242. 

14.  Ewer  v.  Livell,  9  Gray  (Mass.)   276. 

15.  Blankenhorn  v.  Lenox,  123  Iowa  67, 
98  N.  W.  556;  Rand  v.  Huff,  (Kan.  App. 
1897)  51  Pac.  577  laffirmed  in  (1898)  53 
Pac.  483];  Craig  v.  Craig,  8  Pa.  Cas.  357,  11 
Atl.  60. 

16.  Alabama. —  Gulf  Red  Cedar  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Crenshaw,  148  Ala.  343,  42  So.  564; 
Fielder  t.  Childs,  73  Ala.  567. 

California. —  Frick  v.  Sinon,  75  Cal.  337, 
17  Pac.  439,  17  Am.  St.  Rep.  177;  McLeran 
V.  Benton,  73  Cal.  329,  14  Pac.  879,  2  Am. 
St.  Rep.  814;  Tully  v.  TuUy,  (1886)  9  Pac. 
841;  Unger  v.  Mooney,  63  Cal.  586,  49  Am. 
Rep.   100. 

Delaware. —  Burton  v.  Morris,  3  Harr.  269. 

Georgia. —  Bowman  v.  Owens,  133  Ga.  49, 
65  S.  E.  156;  Morgan  v.  Mitchell,  104  Ga. 
596,  30  S.  E.  792;  Cain  v.  Furlow,  47  Ga. 
674;  Home  v.  Howell,  46  Ga.  9. 

Haieaii. —  Kuanalewa  v.  Kipi,  7  Hawaii 
575. 

Illinois. —  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tice,  232 
111.  232,  83  N.  E.  818;  Steele  v.  Steele,  220 
111.  318,  77  N.  E.  232;  Dawson  v.  Edwards, 
189  111.  60,  59  N.  E.  590;  Boyd  v.  Boyd,  176 
111.  40,  51  N.  E.  782,  68  Am.  St.  Rep.  169; 
Burgett  V.  Taliaferro,  118  111.  503,  9  N.  E. 
334;  Goeway  v.  Urig,  18  111.  238. 

loioa. —  Murray  v.  Quigley,  (1902)  92 
S.  W.  869;  Bader  r.  Dyer,  106  Iowa  715, 
77  N.  W.  469,  68  Am.  St.  Rep.  332;  Leach 
V.  Hall,  95  Iowa  611,  64  N.  W.  790;  Kinney 
1-.  Slattery,  51  Iowa  353,  1  N.  W.  626.  See 
also  Blankenhorn  v.  Lenox,  123  Iowa  67,  98 
N.  W.  566. 

Kansas. —  Scantlin  v.  Allison,  32  Kan.  376, 
4  Pac.  618. 

Kentucky. —  Bloom  v.  Sawyer,  121  Ky.  308, 
89  S.  W.  204,  28  Ky.  L.  Rep.  349;  Rose  v. 
Ware,  115  Ky.  420,  74  S.  W.  188,  24  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  2321,  76  S.  W.  505,  25  Ky.  L.  Rep.  947 ; 
Adkins  V.  Whalin,  87  Ky.  153,  7  S.  W.  912, 
10  Ky.  L.  Rep.  17,  12  Am.  St.  Rep.  470; 
Greenhill  v.  Biggs,  85  Ky.  155,  2  S.  W.  774, 
8  Ky.  L.  Rep.  825,  7  Am.  St.  Rep.  579;  Gill 
V.  Fauntleroy,  8  B.  Mon.  177  O'Mara  v.  Lilly, 
53  S.  W.  516,  21  Ky.  L.  Rep.  951. 

Maine. —  Soper  v.  Lawrence  Bros.  Co.,  98 
Me.  268,  56  Atl.  908,  99  Am.  St.  Rep.  397; 
Bird  f.  Bird,  40  Me.  398. 

Maryland. —  Merryman  v.  Cumberland 
Paper  Co.,  98  Md.  223,  56  Atl.  364;   Eutter 

[III,  C,  3,  b,  (I)] 


r.  Small,  68  Md.  133,  11  AtL  698,  6  Am.  St. 
Rep.  434. 

Uassaohusetts. —  Joyce  v.  Dver,  189  Mass. 
64,  75  N.  E.  81,  109  Am.  St.  Rep.  603;  Kit- 
tredge  v.  Proprietors  Merrimack  River  Locks, 
etc.,  17  Pick.  246,  28  Am.  Dee.  296;  Bigelow 
V.  Jones,  10  Pick.  161;  Marcy  v.  Marcy,  6 
Mete.  360. 

Michigan. —  Payment  f.  Murphy,  141  Mich. 
626,  104  N.  W.  1111;  Brigham  v.  Reau,  139 
Mich.  256,  102  N.  W.  845;  Fuller  v.  Swens- 
berg,  106  Mich.  305,  64  N.  W.  463,  58  Am. 
St.  Rep.  481;  Highstone  v.  Burdette,  61 
Mich.  54,  27  N.  W.  852. 

Minnesota. —  Sanford  f.  Saflford,  99  Minn. 
380,  108  N.  W.  819,  116  Am.  St.  Rep.  432; 
Hanson  v.  Ingwaldson,  77  Minn.  533,  80 
N.  W.  702,  77  Am.  St.  Rep.  692. 

Mississippi. —  Gardiner  v.  Hinton,  86  Miss. 
604,  38  So.  779,  109  Am.  St.  Rep.  726. 

Missouri. —  Campbell  i.  Laclede  Gas  Light 
Co.,  84  Mo.  352;  Miller  v.  Bledsoe,  61  Mo. 
96  (holding  that  where  one  takes  possession 
under  a  deed  of  warranty  for  the  whole 
tract,  supposing  that  he  takes  a  fee  absolute 
and  there  is  nothing  to  show  the  contrary, 
his  act  amounts  to  such  a  disclaimer  as  to 
entitle  him  to  the  benefit  of  the  statutes  of 
limitations)  ;  Vasquez  v.  Ewing,  24  Mo.  31, 
66  Am.  Dec.  694. 

Nebraska. —  Carson  v.  Broady,  56  Nebr.  648, 
77  N.  W.  80,  71  Am.  St.  Rep.  691. 

New  Hampshire. —  Thompson  v.  Gerrish,  57 
N.  H.  85;  Hatch  v.  Partridge,  35  N.  H.  148. 

New  Jersey. —  Foulke  v.  Bond,  41  N.  J.  L. 
527. 

New  Mexico. —  Neher  v.  Armijo,  9  N.  M. 
325,  54  Pac.  236,  11  N.  M.  67,  66  Pac.  517. 

New  York. —  Hamerschlag  v.  Duryea,  172 
N".  Y.  622,  65  N.  E.  1117;  Sweetland  v.  Buell, 
164  N.  Y.  541,  56  N.  E.  663,  79  Am.  St.  Rep. 
676  laflirming  89  Hun  543,  35  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
346]  ;  Baker  v.  Oalcwood,  123  N.  Y.  16,  25 
N.  E.  312,  10  L.  R.  A.  387 ;  Wright  v.  Sad- 
dler, 20  N.  Y.  320 ;  Constantine  v.  Van  Win- 
kle, 6  Hill  177;  Jackson  v.  Smith,  13  Johns. 
406;  Bogardus  i\  Trinity  Church,  4  Paige 
178;  Town  v.  Needham,  3  Paige  545,  24  Am. 
Dec.  246. 

North  Carolina. —  Mott  r.  Carolina  Land, 
etc.,  Co.,  146  N.  C.  525,  60  S.  E.  423;  Bullin 
V.  Hancock,  138- N.  C.  198,  50  S.  E.  621; 
Woodlief  r.  Woodlief,  136  N.  C.  133,  48  S.  E. 
583 ;  Shannon  r.  Lamb,  126  N.  C.  38,  35  S.  E. 
232 ;  Roscoe  v.  John  L.  Roper  Lumber  Co.,  124 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc]     35 


of  the  entire  estate  coupled  with  possession  by  the  grantee  and  notice  to  the  other 
cotenants,  actual  or  presumed,  or  open,  hostile,  exclusive,  and  notorious  acts  of 
ownership,  constitutes  adverse  possession  which  may  ripen  into  a  valid  title  by 
prescription."    It  is  held  in  some  cases,  however,  that  if  a  stranger  grantee  of  the 


N.  C.  42,  32  S.  E.  389;  Ferguson  v.  Wright, 
113  N.  C.  537,  18  S.  E.  691;  Ward  v.  Farmer, 
92  N.  C.  93;  Baird  v.  Baird,  21  N.  C.  524,  31 
Am.  Dee.  399. 

Ohio. —  Payne  f.  Cooksey,  8  Ohio  S.  &  C. 
PI.  Dee.  407,  7  Ohio  N.  P.  90.  See  also 
Ward  V.  Ward,  30  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  615. 

Pennsylvania. —  Wilson  v.  Collishaw,  13  Pa. 
St.  276;  Culler  v.  Motzer,  13  Serg.  &  E.  356, 
15  Am.  Dec.  604. 

South  Carolina. —  Sudduth  V.  Sumeral,  61 
S.  C.  276,  39  S.  E.  534,  85  Am.  St.  Eep.  883; 
Odom  V.  Weathersbee,  26  S.  C.  244,  1  S.  E. 
890;  Gray  v.  Bates,  3  Strobh.  498;  Elliott  v. 
Morris,  Harp.  Eq.  281. 

Tennessee. —  Weisinger  v.  Murphy,  2  Head 
674. 

Teacas. —  Hardy  Oil  Co.  v.  Burnham,  (Civ. 
App.  1909)  124  S.  W.  221;  Naylor  v.  Foster, 
44  Tex.  Civ.  App.  599,  99  S.  W.  114;  Garcia 
f.  Illg,  14  Tex.  Civ.  App.  482,  37  S.  W.  471; 
Byers  v.  Carll,  7  Tex.  Civ.  App.  423,  27  S.  W. 
190;  Lewis  V.  Terrell,  7  Tex.  Civ.  App.  314, 
26  S.  W<  754.  But  see  Noble  v.  Hill,  8  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  171,  27  S.  W.  756. 

Yermont. —  Leach  r.  Beattie,  33  Vt.  195; 
Roberts  v.  Morgan,  30  Vt.  319. 

Virginia. —  Johnston  v.  Virginia  Coal,  etc., 
Co.,  96  Va.  158,  31  S.  E.  85. 

West  Virginia. —  Bennett  v.  Pierce,  40 
S.  E.  395,  50  W.  Va.  604;  Talbot  V.  Wood- 
ford, 48  W.  Va.  449,  37  S.  E.  580;  Parker  v. 
Brast,  45  W.  Va.  399,  32  S.  E.  269. 

Wisconsin. —  McOann  v.  Welch,  106  Wis. 
142,  81  N.  W.  996. 

United  States. —  Bradstreet  v.  Huntington, 
5  Pet.  402,  8  L.  ed.  170;  Elder  v.  MeCIaskey, 
70  Fed.  529,  17  C.  C.  A.  251  [reversing  47 
Fed.  154]. 

See  ¥5  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  39. 

Even  though  the  grantee  lias  knowledge  of 
the  cotenancy,  if  he  takes  a  conveyance  to 
the  entire  common  property  he  is  not  prima 
facie  assumed  as  regarding  himself  as  a  co- 
tenant  where  the  circumstances  are  such  as 
to  bring  home  to  the  cotenants  of  the  grantor 
the  adverse  character  of  the  grantee's  holding, 
if  said  cotenants  paid  proper  attention  to 
their  rights.  Kalamakee  v.  Wharton,  16 
Hawaii  228. 

The  contents  of  the  deed  is  not  the  only 
matter  to  be  taken  into  account  in  deter- 
mining the  character  of  the  occupancy; 
whether  it  is  adverse  or  not  depends  upon 
the  circumstances  of  the  case  affected  by 
the  relationship  of  cotenancy.  Sparks  v. 
Bodensick,  72  Kan.  5,  82  Pao.  463. 

Possession  by  the  vendee  may  be  tacked 
to  that  of  the  vendor  to  whom  he  surren- 
dered the  property  through  inability  to  pay 
therefor.  Talbott  v.  Woodford,  4S  W.  Va. 
449,  37  S.  E.  580. 

A  mortgage  executed  by  a  tenant  in  com- 
mon is  not  equivalent  to  a  disseizin  of  the 


others,  unless  the  grantee  enters  claiming 
the  entire  title  (Leach  v.  Hall,  95  Iowa  611, 
64  N.  W.  790.  See  also  Harriss  v.  Howard, 
126  Ga.  325,  55  S.  E.  59),  and  a  tenant  in 
common  having  mortgaged  his  interest,  and 
being  permitted  by  the  grantee  to  remain  in 
possession,  has  a  right  to  occupy  in  common 
with  his  cotenants  or  in  severalty,  and  his 
occupation  in  severalty  will  not  amount  to  a 
disseizin  of  the  grantee  (Colton  f;  Smith,  11 
Pick.  (Mass.)  311,  22  Am.  Dec.  375;  Scottish- 
American  Mortg.  Co.  V.  Bunckley,  88  Miss. 
641,  41  So.  502,  117  Am.  St.  Rep.  763),  and, 
although  a  tenant  in  common  mortgaged  the 
whole  estate,  there  was  no  constructive  ouster 
where  he  remained  in  actual  possession  and 
the  jury  found,  on  the  evidence,  that  there 
was  no  intention  on  his  part  to  oust  his  co- 
tenants  (Moore  v.  Collishaw,  10'  Pa.  St. 
224 ) .  Even  where  a  tenant  in  common  mort- 
gages the  whole  property  and  the  mortgagees 
enter  under  a  foreclosure,  this  may  not 
amount  to  an  ouster  of  and  an  adverse  pos- 
session against  the  cotenant.  Leach  v.  Beat- 
tie,  39  Vt.  195.  See  also  Hodgdon  v.  Shan- 
non, 44  N.  H.  572. 

An  analogous  principle  obtains  as  to  per- 
sonalty only,  however,  if  such  transfer 
amounts  to  a  denial  of  the  non-vending  co- 
tenant's  rights  in  the  premises  or  u  destruc- 
tion of  the  subject-matter,  or  is  adverse  to 
such  cotenant.  Arthur  v.  Gayle,  38  Ala.  259 ; 
Dyckman  v.  Valiente,  42  N.  Y.  549 ;  Brown 
V.  Burnap,  17  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  129,  45  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  149 ;  Worsham  f.  Vignal,  5  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  471,  24  S.  W.  562;  Sanborn  v.  Morrill, 
15  Vt.  700,  40  Am.  Dec.  701.  The  mere  sale 
of  a  chattel  by  one  tenant  in  common  is  held 
not  to  amount  to  a  conversion  unless  it 
operates  altogether  to  deprive  his  companion 
of  his  propertv  therein.  Mayhew  v.  Herrick, 
7  C.  B.  229,  13  Jur.  1078,  18  L.  J.  C.  P.  179, 
62  E.  C.  L.  229. 

Reconveyance  to  grantor. —  A  reconveyance 
by  one  of  a  number  of  tenants  in  common  by 
a  deed  purporting  to  convey  the  entire  tract 
to  one  who  had  theretofore  conveyed  said 
tract  to  said  tenants  in  common  is  not  a  dis- 
seizin. Stevens  v.  Wait,  112  111.  544.  Com- 
pare Naylor  «?.  Foster,  44  Tex.  Civ.  App.  599, 
99  S.  W.  114. 

17.  Eawaii. — Kuanalewa  v.  Kipi,  7  Hawaii 
575. 

Indiana. —  Grubbs  v.  Leyendecker,  153  Ind. 
348,  53  N.  E.  940. 

Kentucky. —  Bloom  r.  Sawyer,  121  Ky.  308, 
89  S.  W.  204,  28  Ky.  L.  Eep.  349. 

Massachusetts. —  Joyce  v.  Dver,  189  Mass. 
64,  75  N.  E.  81,  109  Am.  St.  Eep.  603. 

Michigan. —  Payment  v.  Murphy,  141  Mich. 
626,  104  N.  W.  nil;  Brigham  i:  Eeau,  139 
Mich.  256,  102  N.  W.  845. 

New  York. —  Hamershlag  v.  Duryea,  38 
N.  Y.  App.  Div.  130,  56  N.  Y.  Suppl.  615; 
Sweetland  v.  Buell,   89  Hun   543,   35  N.   Y. 

[Ill,  C,  3,  b,  (II)] 


36     [38  Cye.] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


entire  tract  from  one  of  the  tenants  in  common  enters  into  possession  with  notice 
of  the  cotenancy  he  must,  in  order  to  acquire  the  entire  title  by  operation  of  the 
statute  of  limitations,  prove  an  actual  ouster  the  same  as  would  have  been  required 
of  his  grantor  had  he  remained  in  possession.'*  A  quitclaim  deed  of  the  entire 
tract  is  not  a  disseizin;  "  nor  is  the  making  of  a  deed  for  the  whole  property  by  a 
cotenant  to  a  stranger  unless  actual  adverse  possession  is  taken  thereunder,^" 
and  unless  followed  by  actual  entry  and  adverse  possession,  an  actual  ouster  is 
not  constituted  as  to  the  devisor's  or  grantor's  cotenants  by  a  conveyance  by  metes 
and  bounds.^'  Conveyance  of  the  interest  of  one  cotenant  is  not  an  ouster  of  the 
other  cotenants,  even  though  the  grantee  so  taking  said  interest  did  not  know 
of  the  other  interests, ^^  and  where  one  takes  a  deed  of  the  interest  of  one  tenant  in 
common  to  the  land,  the  other  tenants  in  common  therein  are  thereby  disentitled 
from  maintaimng  an  action  for  the  recovery  of  the  possession  of  the  land  until 
said  grantee  shall  have  thereafter  ousted  them.^ 

(ill)  Ouster  as  Evidenced  by  Pleadings.  Pleadings  may  evidence  an 
ouster  or  adverse  holding.  Thus  a  pleaded  denial  of  plaintiff's  interest,  coupled  with 
an  allegation  of  title  and  possession  in  defendant  cotenant,  is  sufficient  proof  of 


Suppl.  346  [affirmed  in  164  N.  Y.  541,  58 
N.  E.  663,  79  Am.  St.  Eep.  676]. 

North  Carolina. —  St.  Peter's  Church  v. 
Bragaw,  144  N.  C.  126,  56  S.  E.  688,  10 
L.  K.  A.  N.  S.  633. 

Virginia. —  Johnston  v.  Virginia  Coal,  etc., 
Co.,  96  Va.  158,  31  S.  E.  85. 

West  Virginia. —  Parker  r.  Brast,  45 
W.  Va.   399,  32  S.  E.  269. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  39. 

And  see  cases  cited  supra,  note  16. 

The  sole  and  exclusive  occupation  of  a  part 
of  the  granted  land  by  the  grantee  under  a 
deed  of  warranty  given  by  one  tenant  in 
common  in  possession,  the  residue  remaining 
vacant,  is  an  act  of  disseizin  and  puts  the 
grantee  into  possession  of  the  whole.  Thomas 
f.  Pickering,  13  Me.  337. 

If  ouster  is  admitted  by  the  pleadings  no 
evidence  of  holding  by  virtue  of  the  tenancy 
in  common  is  admissible.  Billings  v.  Gibbs, 
55  Me.  238,  92  Am.  Dec.  587.  And  see  infra, 
note  24  et  seq. 

18.  California. —  Packard  v.  Johnson,  51 
Cal.  545. 

Indiana. —  Sims  v.  Dame,  113  Ind.  127,  15 
N.  E.  217. 

Iowa. — ■  Sorenson  f.  Davis,  83  Iowa  405,  49 
N.  W.  10O4. 

New  York. —  Hamershlag  v.  Duryea,  38 
N.  Y.  App.  Div.  130,  56  N.  Y.  Suppl.  615. 

North  Carolina. —  Eoscoe  r.  John  L.  Roper 
Lumber  Co.,  124  N.  C.  42,  32  S.  E.  389. 

Texas. —  Kirby  i:  Hayden,  44  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  207,  99'  S.  W.  746. 

Virginia. —  Buchanan  v.  King,  22  Gratt. 
414. 

West  Virginia. —  McNeeley  v.  South  Penn 
Oil  Co.,  52  W.  Va.  616,  44  S.  E.  508,  62 
L.  R.  A.  562. 

Where  one  holding  the  entire  title  for  life 
as  devisee  of  his  deceased  sole  cotenant,  re- 
mainder to  his  heirs,  undertook  to  convey 
the  whole  of  the  estate  to  one  of  his  heirs 
only,  the  grantee  will  not  be  allowed  in  equity 
to  hold  adversely  to  the  other  heirs.  Hicks 
V.  Bullock,  96  N.  C.  164,  1  S.  E.  629. 

[Ill  C,  3,  b,  (ll)] 


19.  Moore  t:  Antill,  53  Iowa  612,  6  N.  W. 
14;  Hume  v.  Long,  53  Iowa  299,  5  N.  W. 
193. 

20.  Inglis  V.  Webb,  117  Ala.  387,  23  So. 
125;  Garcia  f.  Illg,  14  Tex.  Civ.  App.  482, 
37  S.  W.  471;  Parker  v.  Brast,  45  W.  Va. 
399,  32  S.  E.  269;  Saladin  v.  Kraayvanger, 
96  Wis.  180,  70  N.  W.  1113.  But  see  Neher 
V.  Armijo,  9  N.  M.  325,  54  Pac.  236,  11  N.  M. 
67,  66  Pac.  517. 

Evidence  of  intention. —  Acceptance  of  a 
deed  asserting  title  to  the  whole  property 
furnishes  evidence  of  the  intention  to  make 
entry  adversely.  Larman  v.  Huey,  13 
B.  Mon.   (Ky.)  436. 

The  registration  of  such  a  deed  is  not  a 
disseizin.  Hardee  v.  Weathington,  130 
N.  C.  91,  40  S.  E.  855. 

The  mere  assertion  of  the  entire  title  by  a 
purchaser  from  one  tenant  in  common  with- 
out adverse  possession  and  without  knowledge 
of  such  claim  on  the  part  of  the  other  co- 
tenants  does  not  amount  to  an  ouster  of  the 
latter.  New  York,  etc.,  Land  Co.  i:  Hyland, 
8  Tex.  Civ.  App.  601,  28  S.  W.  206. 

Where  the  cotenancy  is  recognized  by  the 
grantee  under  a  deed  from  less  than  the 
whole  number  of  cotenants  to  the  entire  land 
or  a  specific  part  thereof  described  by  metes 
and  bounds,  the  occupancy  and  exclusive  en- 
joyment of  the  entire  land  is  not  an  ouster 
or  a  disseizin.  Price  v.  Hall,  140  Ind.  314, 
39  N.  E.  941,  49  Am.  St.  Rep.  196;  Van 
Ormier  v.  Harley,  102  Iowa  150,  71  K  W. 
241.  A  grantee  of  one-  of  two  cotenants  of 
land  cannot  maintain  ejectment  against  the 
other  cotenant,  the  cotenants  having  recog- 
nized each  other's  possession.  Tansman  v. 
Faris,  59  Cal.  663. 

21.  Phillips  V.  Tudor,  10  Gray  (Mass.)  78, 
69  Am.  Dec.  306;  Porter  v.  Hill,  9  Mass.  34, 
6  Am.  Dec.  22;  Hannon  r.  Hannah,  9  Gratt. 
(Va.)  146.  Compare  Weisinger  v.  Murphv, 
2  Head  (Tenn.)   674. 

22.  Curtis  v.  Barber,  131  Iowa  400,  108 
N.  W.  755,  117  Am.  St.  Rep.  425. 

23.  House  v.  Fuller,  13  Vt.  165,  37  Am. 
Dec.  580. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cye.j     37 


ouster,^*  and  under  statutes  prescribing  that  general  issue  pleas  or  other  pleas  to  the 
merits  shall  be  taken  as  admission  of  defendant  being  in  possession  of  the  premises 
sued  for,  for  the  purposes  of  the  action,  it  is  held  that  the  pleas  of  not  guilty  and  stat- 
ute of  limitations  are  equivalent  to  an  ouster, ^^  and  refusal  to  recognize  any  title  in 
plaintiff  and  a  denial  of  such  title  by  defendant  in  his  answer  may  be  sufficient 
ouster  to  maintain  suit  even  under  a  statute  requiring  a  proof  of  actual  ouster.^" 
An  ouster,  merely  evidenced  by  the  pleadings,  relates  to  the  time  of  the  filing  of 
the  pleadings  and  not  to  the  time  alleged  in  such  pleadings  to  be  the  time  when 
adverse  possession  began,^'  and  if  there  be  no  proof  of  ouster  except  as  appears 
in  the  pleadings,  plaintiff  can  recover  damages  only  from  the  date  of  the  institu- 
tion of  the  suit.^*  But  on  the  other  hand  it  is  held  that  where  a  statute  requires 
proof  of  an  actual  ouster,  proof  of  demandant's  title  as  tenant  in  common  will 
not  entitle  him  to  a  judgment  where  defendant  has  pleaded  nul  disseizin.^*  It 
has  been  held  that  if  cotenancy  is  denied  there  is  no  necessity  for  any  stronger 
proof  of  ouster  than  against  any  other  party.'" 

(iv)  Notice  of  Adverse  Holding.  Notice  of  adverse  holding  need  not 
be  actual,  direct,  formal,  verbal,  or  written  notice.^'  It  may  be  inferred  where 
the  possession  is  of  such  a  hostile  and  imequivocal  character  and  is  so  openly 
manifested  that  a  man  of  ordinary  diligence  would  discover  it;  ^  and  it  may  even 
be  constructive  notice;^'  and  notice  of  an  adverse  holding  may  be  by  pleadings 
in  an  appropriate  action  between  the  cotenants;  but  such  notice  may  not  arise 


24.  Arkansas. —  Brewer  v.  Keller,  42  Ark. 
289. 

Maine. —  Billings  v.  Gibbs,  65  Me.  238,  92 
Am.  Dec.  587.  But  see  Cutis  v.  King,  5  Me. 
482. 

Michigan. —  Fenton  v.  Miller,  108  Mich. 
246,  65  N.  W.  966. 

New  Hampshire. —  Lyford  r.  Thurston,  16 
N.  H.  399. 

New  York. —  Peterson  v.  De  Baum,  36  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  259',  55  N.  Y.  Suppl.  249.  But 
see  Oilman  v.  Oilman,  111  N".  Y.  265,  18  K  E. 
849. 

Compare  Eawson  v.  Morse,  4  Pick.  (Mass.) 
127. 

25.  Noble  'v.  McFarland,  61  111.  226;  Ly- 
ford V.  Thurston,  16  N.  H.  399;  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  E.  Co.  V.  Prather,  75  Tex.  53,  12  S.  W. 
969. 

26.  Minton  v.  Steele,  125  Mo.  181,  28  S.  W. 
746;  Jordan  v.  Surghnor,  107  Mo.  620,  17 
S.  W.  1009,  answer  admitting  withholding 
possession  from  plaintiff. 

If  defendant  merely  denies  plaintiff's  title 
he  admits  ouster;  if  he  does  not  deny  plain- 
tiff's title  it  should  be  admitted,  and  ouster 
should  be  denied.  Withrow  v.  Biggerstaff,  82 
N.  C.  82. 

27.  Fenton  v.  Miller,  108  Mich.  246,  65 
N.  W.  966. 

The  implied  admission  does  not  carry  ad- 
mission of  the  date  of  ouster  alleged  in  the 
petition.  La  Riviere  v.  La  Eiviere,  77  Mo. 
512. 

28.  Miller  v.  Myers,  46  Cal.  535;  Huff  v. 
McDonald,  22  Ga.  131,  68  Am.  Dec.  487. 

29.  Outts  V.  King,  5  Me.  482 ;  Fenton  v. 
Miller,  94  Mich.  204,  53  N.  W.  957;  Oilman 
V.  Oilman,  111  N.  Y.  265,  18  N.  E.  849. 

An  answer  denying  knowledge  or  informa- 
tion sufficient  to  form  a  belief  as  to  plaintiff's 
interest  and  an  allegation  of  title  and  pos- 
session   in    defendant   cotenant    amounts    to 


proof  of  ouster,  within  the  provision  of  a 
statute  requiring  such  proof.  Peterson  v.  De 
Baun,  36  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  259,  55  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  249. 

30.  Peterson  1).  Laik,  24  Mo.  541,  69  Am. 
Dec.  441;  Leech  v.  Leech,  24  U.  C.  Q.  B. 
321. 

Proof  of  finding  of  adverse  holding  for  a 
less  period  than  that  alleged  is  sufficient  proof 
of  ouster.  XJrant  v.  Paddock,  30  Oreg.  8J2, 
47  Pac.  712. 

31.  California. —  Unger  v.  Mooney,  63  Cal. 
686,  49  Am.  Eep.  100. 

Kentucky. —  Greenhill  v.  Biggs,  85  Ky.  155, 
2  S.  W.  774,  8.  Ky.  L.  Eep.  825,  7  Am.  St.  Eep. 
579. 

Missouri. —  Peck  v.  Lockridge,  97  Mo.  543, 
11  S.  W.  246. 

Pennsylvania. — Lodge  v.  Patterson,  3  Watts 
74,  27  Am.  Dec.  335. 

United  States. —  Elder  v.  McOlaskey,  70 
Fed.  529',  17  C.  C.  A.  251  [reversing  47  Fed. 
154]. 

See  45  Cemt.  Dig.  tit.  "Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  49. 

32.  Hutson  «.  Hutson,  139  Mo.  229,  40 
S.  W.  886;  Wheeler  v.  Taylor,  32  Oreg.  421, 
52  Pac.  183,  67  Am.  St.  Eep.  540;  Holley  v. 
Hawley,  39  Vt.  625,  94  Am.  Dec.  350. 

Slight  acts  may  not  -be  sufficient  to  give 
such  notice.  Courtner  v.  Etheredge,  149  Ala. 
78,  43  So.  368;  Curtis  V.  Barber,  131  Iowa 
400,  108  N.  W.  755,  117  Am.  St.  Rep. 
425. 

33.  Ames  v.  Howes,  13  Ida.  756,  93  Pac. 
35;  McCrum  v.  MoCrum,  36  Ind.  App.  636, 
76  N.  E.  415 ;  Payne  v.  Cooksey,  8  Ohio  S.  & 
C.  PI.  Dec.  407,  7  Ohio  N.  P.  90;  Puckett  v. 
McDaniel,  8  Tex.  Civ.  App.  630,  28  S.  W. 
360. 

The  recording  of  a  mortgage  of  the  whole 
land  by  one  cotenant  is  not  such  constructive 
notice.     Leach  f.  Beattie,  33  Vt.  195. 

[Ill,  C,  3,  b,  (iv)] 


38     [38  Cyc] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


from  pleadings  in  a  case  in  which  controverted  questions  of  title  covild  not  be 
fully  determined.^* 

e.  Tacking  Possession.  Possession  by  those  claiming  under  a  disseizing  ten- 
ant in  common  may  be  tacked  to  the  disseizor's  possession  so  as  to  perfect  title 
as  against  the  cotenants  disseized,'^  and  if  the  adverse  possession  has  ripened  into 
a  title,  recognition  of  the  former  owner  wiU  not  operate  to  revest  title  in  him.^' 
But  where  a  person,  having  acquired  a  specific  interest  in  a  particular  tract  of 
land,  has  taken  possession  of  the  whole,  with  a  view  of  acquiring  the  additional 
interest,  merely  by  holding  possession  of  it  under  a  claim  of  ownership,  he  does 
not  convey  such  possession  to  a  vendee,  to  whom  he  sells  the  interest  described, 
and  such  vendee  caimot,  for  the  purpose  of  aidmg  himself  in  the  acqviisition  by 
prescription  of  property  not  included  in  his  title,  add  his  vendor's  possession  to  his 
own,  there  being  no  privity  between  him  and  his  vendor  in  that  respect.^'  Where  there 
are  several  tenants  in  common  of  land  of  whom  aU  but  one  are  in  possession  and 
before  the  statutory  period  has  run  the  latter  acquires  another  imdivided  share 
from  or  under  one  of  those  in  possession,  the  statute  rims  as  to  both  shares  from 
the  time  the  last  one  was  acquired.^' 

d.  Waiver  or  Abandonment  by  Disseizor;  Survivorship.  After  the  com- 
mencement of  the  running  of  the  statute,  or  after  the  expiration  of  the  term  of 
the  respective  statutes  of  limitations  and  the  vesting  of  rights  thereimder,  such 
benefits  cannot  be  lost  except  by  some  act  of  abandonment.^*  Where,  however, 
a  tenant  in  common  in  possession  recognizes  his  cotenants'  right  in  the  land,  a 
presiunption  arises  that  he  then  ceases  to  be  an  adverse  holder,  no  matter  how 
hostile  his  possession  may  previously  have  been,  and  the  recognition  has  the 
effect  to  put  all  the  tenants  in  common  in  seizin  and  possession  of  their  respective 
shares,'"'  and  a  presumption  of  an  adverse  holding  may  be  rebutted  by  evidence 


34.  Donason  r.  Barbero,  230  111.  138,  82 
K.  E.  620;  Tarplee  v.  Sonn,  109  N.  Y.  App. 
Div.  241,  96  N.  Y.  Suppl.  6. 

35.  Cole  I.  Lester,  48  Misc.  (X.  Y.)  13, 
96  N.  Y.  Suppl.  67;  \Yheeler  f.  Taylor,  32 
Oreg.  421,  52  Pac.  183,  67  Am.  St.  Rep.  540, 
holding  that  where  one  of  several  cotenants 
is  given  a  deed  of  the  land  from  the  tenant 
in  possession  who  was  holding  adversely  to 
the  others,  all  believing  that  the  latter  was 
the  sole  owner,  the  subsequent  possession  of 
the  grantee  under  his  deed  might  be  tacked 
to  the  possession  of  his  grantor  so  as  to 
create  a  bar  by  limitation  against  the  re- 
maining cotenants.  See  also  Wilson  v.  Wil- 
liams, 52  Miss.  487. 

36.  Cole  t.  Lester,  48  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  13, 
96  N.  Y.  Suppl.  67. 

37.  Sibley  v.  Pierson,  125  La.  478,  51  So. 
502. 

38.  Hill  V.  Ashbridge,  20  Ont.  App. 
44. 

39.  Home  v.  Home,  38  Nova  Scotia  404. 
The  mere  acceptance  of  a  deed  by  the  one 

so  entitled  to  an  alleged  interest  of  one  of 
the  tenants  in  common  is  not  such  an  act  of 
abandonment.  York  r.  Hutcheson,  37  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  367,  83  S.  W.  895. 

40.  Sparks  f.  Bodensick,  72  Kan.  5,  82  Pac. 
463;  Venable  f.  Beauchamp,  3  Dana  (Ky.) 
321,  28  Am.  Dec.  74;  Alsobrook  v.  Eggleston, 
69  Miss.  833,  13  So.  850;  Illg  r.  Garcia,  92 
Tex.  251,  47  S.  W.  717;  House  v.  Williams, 
16  Tex.  Civ.  App.  122,  40  S.  W.  414. 

He  cannot  occupy  inconsistent  positions  in 
relation  to  his  cotenants,  such  as  recognizing 
the  interests  of  some  of  them  and  claiming 

[III,  C.  3,  b,  (IV)] 


that  he  has  ousted  others  of  them.     Schoon- 
over  V.  Tyner,  72  Kan.  475,  84  Pac.  124. 

The  mere  fact  that  a  dispossessed  cotenant 
resided  as  a.  member  of  the  family  of  his  dis- 
seizing cotenant  did  not  affect  the  adverse  pos- 
session. Feliz  t.  Feliz,  105  Cal.  1,  38  Pac.  521. 

Purchase  of  title. — Where  a  tenant  in  pos- 
session of  property  claiming  adversely  to  the 
world  buys  title  thereto  to  quiet  his  own 
title,  such  purchase  does  not  constitute  a 
waiver  or  abandonment  of  his  disseizin  or  of 
that  of  those  claiming  with  him  as  coten- 
ants, provided  such  purchase  does  not  carry 
with  it  a  recognition  of  the  disseized  coten- 
ancy. Uuger  f.  Mooney,  63  Cal.  586,  49  Am. 
Eep.  100;  Barr  f.  Chapman,  11  Ohio  Dec. 
(Reprint)  862,  30  Cine.  L.  Bui.  264.  And 
see  infra.  III,  D,  2.  The  presumption  arising 
from  the  acceptance  of  a  conveyance  of  the 
original  title  to  that  portion  may  be  over- 
come by  evidence  that  the  possession  he  then 
had  continued  under  the  claim  of  an  ex- 
clusive right,  and  with  the  intention,  to  ex- 
clude other  owners  of  the  original  title,  al- 
though cotenants,  from  any  right  or  interest 
therein.  Cook  v.  Clinton,  64  Mich.  309,  31 
N.  W.  317,  8  Am.  St.  Rep.  816.  The  pur- 
chase of  the  undivided  interest  of  one  of 
several  co-claimants  by  one  in  adverse  pos- 
session, merely  to  protect  himself  against 
litigation,  as  is  known  to  the  other  claimants, 
is  not  a  recognition  of  the  cotenancy,  nor 
does  the  purchaser  hold  as  tenant  in  common 
with  such  claimants.  Cooper  v.  Great  Falls 
Cotton  Mills  Co.,  94  Tenn.  588,  30  S.  W. 
353.  See  also  Frick  v.  Simon,  75  Cal.  337, 
17  Pac.  439,  7  Am.  St.  Rep.  177. 


TENANCY  TN  COMMON 


[38  Cye.]     39 


of  a  subsequent  acknowledgment  of  a  cotenancy  in  the  premises."  But  after 
abandonment  of  the  cotenancy,  or  perfection  of  title  by  adverse  possession,  such 
evidence  may  not  be  sufficient  to  rebut  such  presumption  arising  from  a  long- 
continued,  notorious,  and  peaceable  occupation  under  a  new  purchase.*^  If  any 
disseizors  less  than  the  whole  number  in  possession  abandon  the  land,  the  abandon- 
ment inures  to  the  benefit  of  those  remaining  in  possession  and  not  of  the  disseizees,*^ 
and  a  sole  survivor  of  joint  disseizors  in  common  entitled  to  the  disseized  land 
becomes  solely  entitled  thereto/* 

e.  Ouster  and  Adverse  Possession  as  Question  of  Law  or  Fact.  The  question 
as  to  whether  or  not  undisputed  acts  of  tenants  in  common  amounted  to  a  disseizin 
of  their  cotenants  so  as  to  start  the  operation  of  the  statute  of  limitations  is  held 
to  be  a  question  for  the  court  and  not  for  the  jury,'"'  and  the  rule  is  the  same  as 
to  a  question  involving  adverse  possession  where  the  elements  going  to  make 
up  adverse  possession  are  not  in  evidence.'"'  Where  the  facts  in  relation  to  an 
ouster  are  conflicting  and  the  finding  of  some  of  them  would  justify  the  presump- 
tion of  an  ouster  they  are  properly  submitted  to  a  jury,*'  so  as  to  the  lapse  of 
time,  or  what  constitutes  reasonable  time.*'  Whether  a  lease,  proven  to  be 
executed  with  the  knowledge  of  a  tenant  in  common  of  the  demised  property, 
was  executed  adversely  or  merely  for  the  purposes  of  convenience  of  the  parties 
is  properly  submitted  to  a  jury,  and  if  the  evidence  on  that  point  is  conflicting 
the  finding  of  the  jury  thereon  is  conclusive.*" 


A  requested  instruction  as  to  what  -would 
constitute  a  break  in  the  continuity  of  pos- 
session which  fails  to  state  the  length  of 
time  or  nature  of  sueli  possession,  whether 
permissive  or  otherwise,  is  properly  refused. 
Ehea  u.  Craig,  141  N.  C.  602,  54  S.  E.  408. 

41.  Thornton  v.  York  Bank,  45  Me.  158; 
Garcia  v.  Illg,  14  Tex.  Civ.  App.  482,  37 
S.  W.  471. 

Recognition  of  the  cotenancy  by  the  bring- 
ing of  an  action  in  ejectment  in  the  joint 
names  of  the  cotenants,  and  entry  of  judg- 
ment therein,  interrupts  the  running  of  the 
statutes  of  limitations  in  favor  of  the  ten- 
ant in  possession.  Handley  v.  Archibald,  30 
Can.  Sup.  Ct.  130. 

42.  Johnson  v.  Toulmin,  18  Ala.  50,  52  Am. 
Dee.  212;  Potter  v.  Herring,  57  Mo.  184; 
Cole  f.  Lester,  48  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  13,  96  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  67.  See  also  Frick  i-.  Simon,  75  Cal. 
337,  17  Pac.  439,  7  Am.  St.  Eep.  177. 

43.  Allen  v.  Holton,  20  Pick.   (Mass.)   458. 

44.  Kauhikoa  t".  Hobron,  5  Hawaii  491; 
Allen  %•.  Holton,  20  Pick.    (Mass.)    458. 

It  is  not  competent  for  the  disseizors  to 
qualify  their  joint  tenancy  and  limit  it  to  a 
tenancy  in  common  to  the  prejudice  of  the 
disseizee.  Putney  f.  Dresser,  2  Mete.  (Mass.) 
583. 

45.  Hendricks  v.  Musgrove,  183  Mo.  300, 
81  S.  W.  1265. 

46.  Inglis  V.  W«bb,  117  Ala.  387,  23  So. 
125;  Morris  f.  Davis,  75  Ga.  169. 

47.  Alaiama. —  Hamby  v.  Folsam,  148  Ala. 
221,  42  So.  648. 

Arkansas. —  Trapnall  v.  Hill,  31  Ark. 
345. 

Iowa. —  Knowles  v.  Brown,  69  Iowa  11,  28 
N.  W.  409. 

Kentucky. —  Gill  v.  Fauntleroy,  8  B.  Mon. 
177.  _ 

Michigan. —  Patrick  v.  Kalamazoo  Y.  M. 
C.  A.,  120  Mich.  185,  79  N.  W.  208;  La  Foun- 


tain V.  Dee,  110  Mich.  347,  63  N.  W.  220; 
Fenton  v.  Miller,  94  Mich.  204,  53  N.  W. 
987 ;  Highstone  v.  Burdette,  54  Mich.  329,  20 
N.  W.  64. 

Mississippi. —  Corbin  v.  Cannon,  31  Miss. 
570;  Harmon  v.  James,  7  Sm.  &  M.  Ill,  45 
Am.  Dec.  296. 

Missouri. —  Warfield  v.  Lindell,  38  Mo.  561, 
90  Am.  Dec.  443. 

Nebraska. —  Beall  r.  McMenemy,  63  Nebr. 
70,  88  N.  W.  134,  93  Am.  St.  Rep.  427. 

New  York.—  Clark  v.  Crego,  47  Barb.  599 ; 
Jackson  v.  Whitbeck,  6  Cow.  632,  16  Am. 
Dec.  454. 

North  Carolina. —  Johnson  v.  Swain,  44 
N.  C.  335. 

Pennsylvania. —  Keyser  v.  Evans,  30  Pa.  St. 
507;  Workman  v.  Guthrie,  29  Pa.  St.  495, 
72  Am.  Dec.  654;  Blackmore  v.  Gregg,  2 
Watts  &  S.  182;  Craig  v.  Craig,  8  Pa.  Cas. 
257,  U  Atl.  60. 

Tennessee. —  Marr  f.  Gilliam,  1  Coldw.  488. 

Virginia. —  Purcell  t'.  Wilson,  4  Gratt.  16. 

England. — -Doe  v.  Prosser,  Cowp.  217,  98 
Eng.  Reprint  1052 ;  Peaceable  v.  Read,  1  East 
568,  102  Eng.  Reprint  220. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  52. 

Whether  the  relationship  of  landlord  and 
tenant  exists  between  cotenants  is  a  question 
of  fact  for  the  jury.  Boley  f.  Barutio,  24  111. 
App.  515  [affirmed  in  120  111.  192,  11  X.  E. 
393]. 

48.  Ela  V.  Ela,  70  N.  H.  163,  47  Atl.  414; 
Burnett  v.  Crawford,  50  S.  C.  161,  27  S.  E. 
645. 

49.  Comstock  v.  Eastwood,  108  Mo.  41,  18 
S.  W.  39. 

So  as  to  the  question  of  tenancy  under  an 
agreement,  where  the  agreement  is  so  ambigu- 
ous in  itself  that  parol  testimony  mus.t  be 
had  in  relation  thereto.  Bromley  r.  Miles,  51 
N.  Y.  App.  Div.  95,  64  N.  Y.  Suppl.  353. 

[Ill,  C,  S,  e] 


40     [38  Cye.J 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


f.  Action  to  Determine  Validity  of  Adverse  Claim.  A  tenant  in  common  is 
allowed,  imder  statute,  in  some  jurisdictions,  to  maintain  an  action  for  the  determi- 
nation of  the  validity  of  an  adverse  claim  of  title  by  a  cotenant.*" 

D.  Purchase  or  Discharge  of  Outstanding  Interest,  Title,  or  Claim  — 
1.  Outstanding  Interests,  Title,  or  Claims  in  General  —  a.  Right  to  Purchase 
or  Discharge  and  Effect  Thereof.  A  tenant  in  common  has  the  right  to  relieve  the 
common  property  from  a  lien  or  encumbrance,^^  and  may  make  a  valid  tender  of  pay- 
ment of  the  whole  mortgage  debt  on  behalf  of  his  cotenants,^^  and  acts  of  this  nature 
done  in  relation  to  the  general  interest  in  the  whole  common  property  are  presumed 
to  have  been  done  bona  fide  for  the  common  benefit,^^  and  generally  a  purchase 
by  a  cotenant  of  an  outstanding  title  being  presumed  to  be  for  the  benefit  of 
all  the  parties  in  interest  is  not  void,  passing  title  subject  to  the  rights  of  other 
cotenants.^*  But  one  tenant  in  common  will  not  be  permitted  to  inequitably 
acquire  title  to  the  common  property,  solely  for  his  own  benefit  or  to  the  exclusion 
of  his  cotenants,^^  the  general  rule  being  that  the  purchase  or  extinguishment  of 
an  outstanding  title  to,  encumbrance  upon,  or  claim  against  the  common  property 
by  one  tenant  in  common  inures  to  the  benefit  of  all  the  coowners,^"  who  may 


50.  See  the  statutes  of  the  several  states. 
And  see  Eoss  v.  Heintzen,  36  Cal.  313;  Elliott 
V.  Frakes,  71  Ind.  412;  Gilmer  v.  Beauchamp, 
40  Tex.  Civ.  App.  125,  87  S.  W.  907. 

51.  Simonson  v.  Lauck,  105  N.  Y.  App. 
Div.  82,  93  N.  Y.  Suppl.  965  (holding  that 
as  each  tenant  in  common  has  the  right  to 
remove  an  encumbrance  from  the  common 
property,  a  mortgagee  refusing  a  tender  of 
the  full  amount  due  on  the  mortgage  on  be- 
half of  a  cotenant  in  the  mortgaged  property 
and  an  assignment  to  such  cotenant  cannot 
complain  that  the  other  cotenants,  not  ob- 
jecting to  the  foreclosure  of  said  mortgage, 
did  not  receive  notice  of  a  motion  for  an 
order  of  an  assignment  of  the  mortgage  and 
the  discontinuance  of  the  action)  ;  Green  v. 
Walker,  22  R.  I.  14,  45  Atl.  742;  Deavitt  v. 
Ring,  73  Vt.  298,  50  Atl.  1066. 

52.  Gentry  r.  Gentry,  1  Sneed  (Tenn.)  87, 
60  Am.  Dee.  137. 

But  the  mortgagee  cannot  be  compelled  to 
take  part  of  the  mortgage  debt  for  the  re- 
lease of  a  moietv.  Frost  v.  Frost,  3  Sandf. 
Ch.  (N.  Y.)   188." 

53.  Jester  v.  Davis,  109  N.  C.  458,  13  S.  E. 
90'8;  Hampton  v.  Wheeler,  99  K.  C.  222,  6 
S.  E.  236 ;  Breden  V.  McLaurin,  98  N.  C.  307, 
4  S.  E.  136;  Page  v.  Branch,  97  N.  C.  97,  1 
S.  E.  625,  2  Am.  St.  Rep.  281 ;  Hicks  v.  Bul- 
lock, 96  N.  C.  164,  1  S.  E.  629;  Richards  v. 
Richards,  31  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  509;  Weaver  f. 
Akin,  48  W.  Va.  456,  37  S.  E.  600;  Hall  v. 
Clark,  44  W.  Va.  659,  30  S.  E.  216. 

54.  Morrison  v.  Roehl,  215  Mo.  545,  114 
S.  W.  981. 

55.  California. —  Mandeville  v.  Solomon,  39 
Cal.  125. 

Michigan. —  Ream  v.  Robinson,  128  Mich. 
92,  87  N.  W.  115. 

Minnesota. —  Oliver  v.  Hedderlv,  32  Minn. 
455,  21  N.  W.  478. 

ffew)  Yort-.— Collins  v.  Collins,  13  K  Y. 
Suppl.  28  [affirmed  in  131  N.  Y.  648,  30  N.  E. 
863]. 

Texas. —  Duke  r.  Reed,  64  Tex.  705. 

Washington. —  Cedar  Canyon  Consol.  Min. 
Co.  V.  Yarwood,  27  Wash.  271,  67  Pac.  749, 

[III,  C,  3,  f] 


See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  55  et  seq. 

Redemption. —  The  purchase  of  mortgaged 
premises  sold  under  the  mortgage  for  the  pur- 
pose of  eflfecting  a  redemption  after  an  un- 
derstanding between  the  cotenants  that  one 
of  them  should  make  such  redemption  and 
take  to  himself  an  assignment  of  the  pur- 
chaser's certificate  of  sale  is  treated  in  equity 
as  a  redemption,  and  as  not  divesting  the 
non-purchasing  cotenant  of  his  estate.  Ed- 
monds f.  Mounsey,  15  Ind.  App.  399,  44  N.  E. 
196;  Holterhoff  t.  Mead,  36  Minn.  42,  29 
iSr.  W.  675. 

56.  Alabama. —  Courtner  v.  Etheredge,  149 
Ala.  78,  43  So.  368;  Jones  v.  Matkin,  118  Ala. 
341,  24  So.  242. 

Arkansas. —  Clements  f.  Gates,  49'  Ark.  242, 
4  S.  W.  776. 

California. —  Stevenson  v.  Boyd,  153  Cal. 
630,  96  Pac.  284,  19  L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  525; 
Calkins  r.  Steinbach,  66  Cal.  117,  4  Pac. 
1103;  Olney  i:  Sawyer,  54  Cal.  379;  Mande- 
ville V.  Solomon,  39  Cal.  125.  Compare  Tully 
V.  Tully,   ( 1886 )   9  Pac.  841. 

Colorado. —  Mills  r.  Hart,  24  Colo.  505,  52 
Pac.  680,  65  Am.  St.  Rep.  241  (patent  to 
mineral  land)  ;  Hodgson  r.  Fowler,  24  Colo. 
278,  50  Pac.  1034  [reversing  7  Colo.  App.  378, 
43  Pac.  462];  Fisher  f.  Seymour,  23  Colo. 
542,  49  Pac.  30.  But  see  Qillett  v.  Gaffney,  3 
Colo.  351. 

Illinois. —  Carpenter  v.  Fletcher,  239  111. 
440,  88  N.  E.  162 ;  Boyd  r.  Boyd,  176  111.  40, 
51  N.  E.  782,  68  Am.  St.  Rep.  169;  Mc- 
Ohesney  f.  White,  140  111.  330,  29  N.  E.  709; 
Burgett  r.  Taliaferro,  118  111.  503,  9  N.  E. 
334 ;  Montague  v.  Selb,  106  111.  49 ;  Bracken 
V.  Cooper,  80  111.  221;  Busch  f.  Huston,  75 
111.  343;  Titsworth  v.  Stout,  49  111.  78,  95 
Am.  Dec.  577;  Phelps  v.  Eeeder,  39  111.  172; 
Ott  V.  Flinapach,  143  111.  App.  61 ;  Mauzey  v. 
Dazey,  114  111.  App.  652.  See  also  Fischer 
V.  Eslaman,  68  111.  78. 

/mdiamo.— Ryason  r.  Dunten,  164  Ind.  86, 
73  N.  E.  74;  McPheeters  r.  Wright,  124  Ind 
560,  24  N.  E.  734,  9  L.  R.  A.  176 ;  Moon  v. 
Jennings,  119  Ind.  130,  20  N.  E.  748,  21  N.  E, 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cye.J    41 


within  a  reasonable  time  elect  to  avail  themselves  of  the  benefit  of  the  purchase 
of  the  outstanding  interest  or  conflicting  claim  or  the  removal  of  the  encumbrance 


471,  12  Am.  St.  Rep.  383;  Elston  v.  Piggott, 
94  Ind.  14;  Wilson  V.  Peelle,  78  Ind.  384; 
Bender  v.  Stewart,  75  Ind.  88 ;  Ladd  v.  Kuhn, 
27  Ind.  App.  535,  61  N.  E.  747. 

Zoiud.— Shell  V.  Walker,  54  Iowa  386,  6 
N.  W.  581;  Fallon  v.  Chideater,  46  Iowa  588, 
26  Am.  Eep.  164;  Weare  v.  Van  Meter,  42 
Iowa  128,  20  Am.  Rep.  616.  But  see  Alex- 
ander V.  Sully,  50  Iowa  192 ;  Sullivan  v.  M&- 
Lenans,  2  Iowa  437,  65  Am.  Dec.  780. 

Kentucky. —  Gossom  v.  Donaldson,  18 
B.  Men.  230,  68  Am.  Dec.  723;  Thruaton  v. 
Masterson,  9  Dana  228;  Lee  v.  Fox,  6  Dana 
171 ;  Venable  v.  Beauchamp,  3  Dana  321,  28. 
Am.  Dec.  74.  Compare  Larman  v.  Hney,  13 
B.  Mon.  436. 

Maine.—  Coburn  v.  Page,  105  Me.  458,  74 
Atl.  1026,  134  Am.  St.  Rep.  575 ;  Vaughan  v. 
Bacon,  15  Me.  455,  33  Am.  Dec.  628  (holding 
that  the  acceptance  by  one  of  several  tenants 
in  common  of  a  relinquishment  and  yielding 
up  by  disseizor  of  all  of  said  tenant's  right, 
seizin,  possession,  and  betterments  which 
the  disseizor  had  in  and  to  the  proportion 
of  that  tenant  in  said  premises,  inures  to 
the  benefit  of  all  the  tenants  respectively,  and 
prevents  the  operation  of  the  statute  of  limi- 
tations prior  to  such  acceptance)  ;  Williams 
V.  Gray,  3  Me.  207,  14  Am.  Dec.  234. 

Michigan. — -Nowlen  v.  Hall,  128  Mich.  274, 
87  N.  W.  222;  Retan  v.  Sherwood,  120  Mich. 
496,  79  N.  W.  692. 

Minnesota. —  Hoyt  v.  Lightbody,  98  Minn. 
189,  108  N.  W.  843,  116  Am.  St.  Rep.  358. 

Mississippi. —  Beaman  v.  Beaman,  90  Miss. 
762,  44  So.  987;  Wyatt  v.  Wyatt,  81  Miss. 
219,  32  So.  317;  Wise  v.  Hyatt,  68  Miss.  714, 
10  So.  37 ;  Hignite  v.  Hignite,  65  Miss.  447,  4 
So.  345,  7  Am.  St.  Rep.  673. 

Missouri. — ^Kohle  v.  Hobson,  215  Mo.  213, 
114  S.  W.  952;  Mahoney  v.  Nevins,  190  Mo. 
360,  88  S.  W.  731;  Hinters  v.  Hinters,  114 
Mo.  26,  21  S.  W.  456;  Dillinger  v.  Kelley,  84 
Mo.  561;  Paul  v.  Fulton,  25  Mo.  156;  Jones 
v.  Stanton,  11  Mo.  433. 

Nebraska. —  Carson  v.  Broady,  56  Nebr. 
648,  77  N.  W.  80,  71  Am.  St.  Rep.  691;  Brown 
V.  Homan,  1  Nebr.  448. 

Nevada. —  Boskowitz  v.  Davis,  12  Nev.  446. 

New  Jersey. —  Ennis  v.  Hutchinson,  30  N.  J. 
Eq.  110. 

New  YorTc. —  Knolls  v.  Barnhart,  71  N.  Y. 
474;  Swinburne  v.  Swinburne,  28  N.  Y.  568; 
Graham  v.  Laddington,  19  Hun  246;  Hackett 
V.  Patterson,  16  N.  Y.  Suppl.  170  (holding 
that  the  renewal  of  the  lease  for  a  safety 
vault  by  a  cotenant  to  the  exclusion  of  his 
cotenants  therein  inured  to  the  beneiit  of 
said  cotenants)  ;  Jackson  v.  Creal,  13  Johns. 
116;  Van  Home  v.  Fonda,  5  Johns.  Ch.  409; 
Burrell  v.  Bull,  3  Sandf.  Ch.  15.  See  also 
Carpenter  f.  Carpenter,  131  N.  Y.  101,  29 
N.  E.  1013,  27  Am.  St.  Rep.  569.  Compare 
Streeter  v.  Shultz,  45  Hun  406  [affirmed  in 
127  N.  Y.  652,  27  N.  E.  857]. 

North  Carolina. —  Threadgill  tr.  Eedwine,  97 
N.  C.  241,  2  S.  E.  526 ;  Page  v.  Branch,  97 
N.  C.  97,  2  S.  E.  625,  2  Am.  St.  Eep.  281; 


Grim  v.  Wicker,  80  N.  C.  343 ;  Pitt  v.  Petway, 
34  N.  C.  69;  Saunders  v.  Gatlin,  21  N.  C. 
86. 

Oregon. —  Crawford  v.  O'Connell,  39  Greg. 
153,  64  Pac.  656;  Dray  v.  Dray,  21  Greg.  59, 
27  Pac.  223. 

Pennsylvania. —  Whitehead  v.  Jones,  197 
Pa.  St.  511,  47  Atl.  978;  Enyard  v.  Enyard, 
190  Pa.  St.  114,  42  Atl.  526,  70  Am.  St.  Rep. 
623;  McGranighan  v.  McGranighan,  186  Pa. 
St.  340,  39  Atl.  951;  Davis  f.  King,  87  Pa. 
St.  261;  Duff  «.  Wilson,  72  Pa.  St.  442;  Keller 
V.  Auble,  58  Pa.  St.  410,  98  Am.  Dec.  297; 
Maul  V.  Rider,  51  Pa.  St.  337;  Lloyd  v. 
Lynch,  28  Pa.  St.  419,  70  Am.  Dec.  137 ; 
Weaver  v.  Wible,  25  Pa.  St.  270,  64  Am.  Dec. 
696;  Ligget  v.  Bechtol  [cited  in  Smiley  v. 
Dixon,  1  Penr.  &  W.  439,  440] ;  Berg  v.  Mc- 
LaflFerty,  9  Pa.  Cas.  135,  12  Atl.  460;  Rich- 
ards V.  Richards,  31  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  509; 
McGranighan  v.  McGranighan,  6  Pa.  Dist. 
33,  19  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  75 ;  Hite  v.  Hite,  21  Pa. 
Co.  Ct.  97. 

South  Dakota. — i  Johnson  v.  Brauch,  9  S.  D. 
116,  68  N.  W.  173,  62  Am.  St.  Rep.  857. 

Tennessee. —  Tisdale  v.  Tisdale,  2  Sneed 
596,  64  Am.  Dec.  775;  Gentry  v.  Gentry,  2 
Sneed  87,  60  Am.  Dec.  137 ;  Hall  v.  Calvert, 
(Ch.  App.  1897)   46  S.  W.  1120. 

Texas. — Anderson  f.  Clauch,  (1887)  6 
S.  W.  760 ;  Rippetoe  v.  Dwyer,  49  Tex.  498. 

Vermont. —  House  v.  Fuller,  13  Vt.  165,  37 
Am.  Dec.  680;  Braintree  v.  Battles,  6  Vt.  396. 

Virginia. —  Buchanan  v.  King,  22  Gratt. 
414. 

Washington. — Cedar  Canyon  Consol.  Min. 
Co.  V.  Yarwood,  27  Wash.  271,  67  Pac.  749, 
91  Am.  St.  Eep.  841.  But  see  Burnett  v. 
Ewing,  39  Wash.  45,  80  Pac.  855. 

West  Virginia. —  Flat  Top  Grocery  Co.  v. 
Bailey,  62  W.  Va.  84,  57  S.  E.  302 ;  Reed  v. 
Bachman,  61  W.  Va.  452,  67  S.  E.  769,  123 
Am.  St.  Rep.  996 ;  Weaver  v.  Akin,  48  W.  Va. 
456,  37  S.  E.  600;  Gilchrist  f.  Beswick,  33 
W.  Va.  168,  10  S.  E.  371. 

Wisconsin. —  Rountree  v.  Denson,  59  Wis. 
622,  18  N.  W.  618. 

United  States. —  Rothwell  V.  Dewees,  2 
Black  613,  17  L.  ed.  309;  Flagg  u.  Mann,  9 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,847,  2  Sumn.  486 ;  Russell  V. 
Beebe,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,153,  Hempst.  704. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  53  et  seq. 

Mines  and  wells. —  The  purchase  of  a  con- 
flicting or  outstanding  claim  in  relation  to  a 
mine  or  well  generally  inures  to  the  benefit 
of  the  cotenants.  Mills  v.  Hart,  24  Colo.  505, 
52  Pac.  680,  65  Am.  St.  Rep.  241 ;  Franklin 
Min.  Co.  V.  O'Brien,  22  Colo.  129,  43  Pac. 
1016,  55  Am.  St.  Rep.  118;  Cedar  Canyon 
Consol.  Min.  Co.  v.  Yarwood,  27  Wash.  271, 
67  Pac.  749,  91  Am.  St.  Rep.  841.  Legal  in- 
terest on  the  amount  of  money  invested  has 
been  held  to  be  proper  compensation  for  the 
use  of  the  land  purchased.  Cecil  v.  Clark,  49 
W.  Va.  459,  39'  S.  E.  202. 

Mortgage  sale. —  The  purchase,  by  a  tenant 
in   common,    of   the   common   property   at   a 

[III,  D,  1,  a] 


42     [38  Cyc] 


TENAWOY  IN  COMMON 


from  the  common  property.^'  Similarly  if  by  any  fraudiilent  means  the  title 
to  property  is  taken  or  acquired  by  one  of  several  persons  who  are  entitled  to  its 
ownership  in  common,  he,  upon  timely  and'  proper  complaint  of  the  injured 
persons,  wiU  be  declared  to  hold  the  title  as  trustee  for  their  benefit,  or  the 
title  will  be  declared  to  be  in  all  of  them  in  common;  ^*  and  where  a  third  person 


foreclosure  sale,  or  the  purchase  of  the  equity 
of  redemption  by  a  tenant  in  common  claim- 
ing under  a  mortgagee,  inures  to  the  benefit 
of  the  cotenants  therein  on  their  timely  elec- 
tion. Hodgson  V.  Fowler,  24  Colo.  278,  50 
Pac.  1034  ^reversing  7  Colo.  App.  378,  43 
Pac.  462];  Bracken  v.  Cooper,  80  111.  221; 
Wyatt  V.  Wyatt,  81  Miss.  21S,  32  So.  317; 
Knolls  V.  Barnhart,  71  N.  Y.  474.  Compare 
Streeter  v.  Shultz,  45  Hun  (N.  Y.)  406  [o/- 
firmed  in  127  N.  Y.  652,  27  N.  E.  857]. 

Purchase  by  relative. —  Acquiescence  in  an 
unfulfilled  plan  whereby  title  to  comm-on  prop- 
erty should  be  purchased  by  relatives  of  a 
tenant  in  common  cannot  defeat  the  interest 
of  such  tenant  in  common  in  the  premises 
purchased  by  his  cotenant.  Richards  v.  Rich- 
ards, 31  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  509. 

The  purchasing  cotenant  holds  as  a  con- 
structive trustee.  Ryason  v.  Dunten,  164 
Ind.  85,  73  N.  E.  74.  And  the  same  rule 
applies  to  those  holding  under  a  cotenant. 
Culmore  v.  Medlenka,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1898) 
44  S.  W.  676. 

Where  part  of  an  adjoining  tract  over- 
lapped the  common  property  and  one  of  the 
tenants  in  common  by  consent  of  all,  and  with 
the  advice  of  common  counsel,  purchased  the 
entire  adjoining  tract,  such  purchase  was 
made  for  the  benefit  of  the  common  owners 
only  to  the  extent  of  the  overlapping  part, 
and  upon  said  purchaser  being  reimbursed 
proportionally  as  to  that  part  the  tenants  in 
common  would  be  entitled  to  their  respective 
portions  thereof  on  partition.  Gass  v. 
Waterhouse,  (Tenn.  Ch.  App.  1900)  61  S.  W. 
450. 

57.  Alahama. — -Savage  r.  Bradley,  149  Ala. 
169,  43  So.  20,  123  Am.  St.  Rep.  30. 

California. —  Mandeville  v.  Solomon,  39  Cal. 
125. 

Colorado. —  Franklin  Min.  Co.  v.  O'Brien, 
22  Colo.  129,  43  Pac.  1016,  55  Am.  St.  Rep. 
118. 

Illinois. —  Goralski  v.  Kostuski,  17S  111. 
177,  53  N.  E.  720,  70  Am.  St.  Rep.  98; 
Walker  v.  Warner,  179  111.  16,  53  N.  E.  594, 
70  Am.  St.  Rep.  85;  Burr  t.  Mueller,  65  111. 
258. 

Indiana. —  Ryason  r.  Dunten,  164  Ind.  85, 
73  N.  E.  74;  Turpie  r.  Lowe,  158  Ind.  314, 
62  N.  E.  484,  92  Am.  St.  Rep.  1310;  Stevens 
V.  Reynolds,  143  Ind.  467,  41  N.  E.  931,  52 
Am.  St.  Rep.  422. 

Kentucky. —  Francis  r.  Million,  80  S.  W. 
486,  26  Ky.  L.  Rep.  42. 

Massachusetts. —  Blodgett  v.  Hildreth,  8 
Allen   186. 

Missouri. —  Nalle  v.  Parks,  173  Mo.  616,  73 
S.  W.  596;  Potter  v.  Herring,  57  Mo.  184; 
Picot  i:  Page,  26  Mo.  398 ;  Jonea  v.  Stanton, 
11  Mo.  433. 

Welirasha. —  Craven  v.  Craven,  68  Nebr. 
469,  94  N.  W.  604. 

[Ill,  D,  1,  a] 


Nevada. —  Boskowitz  v.  Davis,  12  Nev.  446. 

Xew  Jersey. — ^Weller  v.  Rolason,  17  N.  J. 
Eq.   13. 

New  York. —  Carpenter  v.  Carpenter,  131 
N.  Y.  101,  29  N.  E.  1013,  27  Am.  St.  Rep. 
569;  Koke  v.  Balken,  73  Hun  145,  25  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  1038,  148  N.  Y.  732,  42  N.  E.  724;  Van 
Home  V.  Fonda,  5  Johns.  Ch.  388. 

Oregon. —  Crawford  v.  O'Connell,  39  Oreg. 
153,  64  Pac.  656. 

Pennsylvania. —  Duff  v.  Wilson,  72  Pa.  St. 
442. 

Rhode  Island. —  Green  v.  Walker,  22  R.  I. 
14,  45  Atl.  742. 

Texas. —  Niday  f.  Cochran,  42  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  292,  93  S.  W.  1027;  McFarlin  v.  Lea- 
man,  (Civ.  App.  1895)  29  S.  W.  44. 

Virginia.— KslII  t.  Caldwell,  97  Va.  311,  33 
S.  E.  596. 

West  Virginia. —  Flat  Top  Grocery  Co.  V. 
Bailey,  62  W.  Va.  84,  57  S.  E.  302 ;  Morris  v. 
Roseberry,  46  W.  Va.  24,  32  S.  E.  1019;  Gil- 
christ V.  Beswick,  33  W.  Va.  168,  10  S.  E. 
371. 

Wisconsin. — Atkinson  v.  Hewett,  63  Wis. 
396,  23  N.  W.  889. 

United  States. —  Rothwell  v.  Dewees,  2 
Black  613,  17  L.  ed.  309. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  55  et  seq. 

Such  election  may  be  made  by  way  of  cross 
bill.     Smith  v.  Osborne,  86  111.  606. 

An  unreasonable  delay  in  making  election 
to  claim  benefit  until  the  condition  of  the 
property  or  circumstances  of  the  parties  are 
changed  amounts  to  an  abandonment  of  the 
right  to  elect.  Morris  v.  Roseberry,  46 
W.  Va.  24,  32  S.  E.  1019. 

58.  Massachusetts. —  Matthews  v.  Bliss,  22 
Pick.  48. 

Michigan. —  Ream  v.  Robinson,  128  Mich. 
92,  87  N.  W.  115,  where  one  purchased 
at  a  mortgage  foreclosure  sale,  knowing 
that  one  of  the  tenants  in  common  of 
land  who  had  paid  more  than  her  share 
of  the  mortgage  debt  regarded  him  as  a  co- 
tenant,  and  thereupon  claimed  to  have  quit- 
claimed the  land  to  his  son  prior  to  the  fore- 
closure proceedings,  and  the  facts  were  held 
to  authorize  a  decree  setting  aside  the  quit- 
claim deed  and  declaring  the  parties  tenants 


in  common. 


New  York. —  Graham  v.  Luddington,  19 
Hun  246,  a  judgment  and  deed  to  lands 
owned  in  common,  procured  by  fraud,  held 
to  be  void  as  against  cotenants. 

Oregon. —  Dray  r.  Dray,  21  Oreg.  59,  27 
Pac.  223,  holding  that  inducing  a  cotenant  to 
deed  his  interest  in  the  common  property,  sold 
at  a  judicial  sale,  under  promise  of  redemp- 
tion thereof;  permitting  time  for  redemption 
to  expire  and  taking  a  deed  thereto  from  the 
execution  purchaser,  makes  such  deed  con- 
structively fraudulent  and  such  title  inures 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc]     43 


obtains  title  to  the  common  property  by  a  fraudulent  agreement  with  one  of  the 
cotenants  therein,  such  third  person  is  liable  to  the  other  cotenant  for  the  value 
of  his  share  therein;  or  such  title  may  be  declared  void.^°  A  cotenant  who  pur- 
chases a  conflicting  title,  or  his  successor,  having  notice  of  all  the  facts,  will  not 
be  permitted  in  the  contest  over  the  title,  in  which  the  other  cooowners  claim 
that  the  purchase  of  the  conflicting  title  inures  to  their  benefit,  to  question  the 
common  title  of  the  cotenants  where  such  claim  would  be  inequitable/"  nor  can 
he,  in  an  action  against  him  by  his  cotenants  to  be  let  into  possession,  justify  an 
ouster  of  plaintiff  by  setting  up  an  outstanding  title  purchased  by  him  while 
in  possession  under  the  common  title,  although  such  title,  so  purchased,  be  the 
true  one."'  Nor  can  he  set  up  a  title  from  the  owners  of  the  land  as  against  a 
possessory  title  under  which  he  has  exclusive  possession  and  his  cotenants  are 
claiming  their  proportional  shares;  "^  and  he  cannot  set  up  a  sheriff's  deed  on  the 
foreclosure  of  an  outstanding  mortgage  as  against  his  cotenant."^  Where  a 
coparcener  claiming  under  an  ancestor  who  had  a  defective  title  falsely  states 
the  consideration  in  his  deed  for  the  purchase  of  an  outstanding  title  and  conceals 
the  fact  of  purchase  from  his  coparceners,  he  is  not  allowed  to  rely  upon  lapse 
of  time  to  defeat  their  right  to  the  benefit  of  such  purchase."*  There  can  be  no 
foreclosure  of  an  outstanding  encumbrance  on  the  common  property  between 
cotenants,  imless  plaintiff  can  show  that  defendants  are  liable  for  the  entire 
incumbrance  and  that  he  is  not  liable  for  any  part  of  such  claim. "^ 

b.  Extent  and  Qualification  of  Rule.  The  rule  above  stated  °"  is  qualified  in 
some  cases  which  hold  that  the  purchase  of  an  outstanding  interest  must  be  inter- 
preted according  to  surrounding  circumstances,"'  and  that  the  rule  obtains  only 


to   the  benefit   of  such   tenants   in   common. 

Pennsylvania. —  McGranighan  v.  McGrani- 
ghan,  185  Pa.  St.  340,  39  Atl.  951  (the  pur- 
chase of  the  common  property  at  judicial 
sale  after  misleading  cotenants  therein,  poor 
and  inexperienced  in  business,  to  believe  that 
only  those  having  money  could  save  their 
shares)  ;  Maul  %.  Eider,  51  Pa.  St.  377  (hold- 
ing that  if  several  persons  agree  to  the  pur- 
chase of  property  in  common  and  one  of  them 
fraudulently  has  said  property  conveyed  to 
himself,  he  holds  the  title  thereto  as  trustee 
for  his  cotenants  whether  or  not  he  undertook 
to  act  as  their  agent). 

Texas. —  See  Clevenger  v.  Mayfield,  (Civ. 
App.  1905)  86  S.  W.  1062. 

The  relocation  of  land  by  a  cobwner  taking 
unfair  advantage  of  information  imparted  to 
him  by  a  cotenant  therein  was  held  to  be  a 
mere  subterfuge  to  defraud  the  cotenants 
therein.  Yarwood  v.  Johnson,  2&  Wash.  643, 
70  Pac.  123. 

But  the  mere  claim  of  fraud,  without  the 
institution  of  some  proceeding  for  the  pur- 
pose of  avoiding  it,  is  not  sufficient  to  give 
the  claimant  a  legal  interest  in  the  common 
property.  Staples  v.  Bradley,  23  Conn.  167, 
60  Am.  Dec.  630. 

59.  Burrell  v.  Bull,  3  Sandf.  Ch.  (N".  Y.) 
15;  Logan  v.  Oklahoma  Mill  Co.,  14  Okla. 
402,  79  Pac.  103. 

A  secret  agreement  between  a  cotenant  and 
a  purchaser  of  property  to  be  sold  at  a  cer- 
tain price,  whereby  the  cotenant  actually 
making  the  sale  is  to  own  a  share  of  the 
common  property  upon  payment  of  a  propor- 
tionate share  of  the  purchase-price,  is  void- 
able at  the  complaint  of  the  other  cotenant. 
Small  f.  Robinson,  9  Hun  (N.  Y.)  418. 


Rent  may  be  recovered  from  the  time  of 
the  delivery  of  deeds  of  the  interest  of  on^ 
tenant  in  common,  if  said  deeds  were  ob- 
tained by  fraud.  Zapp  v.  Miller,  109  N.  Y. 
51,  15  N.  E.  889. 

But  mere  neglect  on  the  part  of  such  pur- 
chaser to  inquire  into  the  state  of  the  title 
may  not  be  sufficient  to  create  fraud. 
Ft.  Scott  V.  Sohulenberg,  22  Kan.  648. 

60.  Inglis  V.  Webb,  117  Ala.  387,  23  So. 
125;  Cedar  Canyon  Consol.  Min.  Co.  v.  Yar- 
wood, 27  Wash.  271,  67  Pac.  749,  91  Am.  St. 
Eep.  841. 

61.  Olney  v.  Sawyer,  54  Cal.  379;  Alexan- 
der V.  Sully,  50  Iowa  192;  Venable  v.  Beau- 
champ,  3  Dana  (Ky.)  321,  28  Am.  Dee.  74; 
Van  Home  v.  Fonda,  5  Johns.  Ch.  (N.  Y.) 
388;  Saladin  v.  Kraayvanger,  96  Wis.  180, 
70  N.  W.  1113. 

62.  Phelan  v.  Kelly,  25  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
389. 

63.  McPheeters  v.  Wright,  124  Ind.  560,  24 
N.  E.  734,  9  L.  R.  A.  176;  Moy  v.  Moy,  89 
Iowa  511,  56  N.  W.  668. 

64.  Pillow  V.  Southwest  Imp.  Co.,  92  Va. 
144,  23  S.  E.  32,  53  Am.  St.  Eep.  804. 

65.  Holmes  v.  Holmes,  129  Mich.  412,  89 
N.  W.  47,  95  Am.  St.  Rep.  444;  Cornell  v. 
Presoott,  2  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  16;  Deavitt  v. 
Eing,  73  Vt.  298,  50  Atl.  1066;  Burnett  v. 
Ewing,  39  Wash.  45,  80  Pac.  855. 

66.  See  supra.  III,  D,  1. 

67.  Mandeville  v.  Solomon,  39  Cal.  125; 
Sparks  T.  Bodensick,  72  Kan.  5,  82  Pac.  463; 
Stubblefield  v.  Hanson,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1906) 
94  S.  W.  406. 

Use  of  relationship. — Whether  or  not  the 
cotenant  used  the  cotenancy,  or  any  title, 
right,  or  claim  in  relation  thereto,  to  acquire 

[III.  D,  1,  b] 


44     [38  Cye.J 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


where  the  relation  of  tenancy  in  common  exists  in  strictness,  and  where  the  relation 
is  such  as  to  require  mutual  trust  and  confidence/*  some  cases  going  to  the  extent 
of  holding  that  the  mutual  obligation  arises  only  where  the  parties  have  acquired 
the  property  by  the  same  instnmient  or  act  of  the  parties  or  of  law,*'  and  that 
persons  acquiruig  unconnected  interests  in  the  same  subject  by  distinct  pur- 
chases, although  it  may  be  under  the  same  title,  are  probably  not  bound  to  any 
greater  protection  of  one  another's  interests  than  would  be  required  between 
strangers.'"  But,  by  the  weight  of  authority,  where  a  relationship  of  confidence 
is  shown  to  exist,  it  is  not  necessary  that  the  several  titles  shall  be  held  by  the 
same  conveyance  or  by  the  same  act  of  law."    A  purchase  by  one  tenant  in  common 


the   outstanding   title   should  be   considered. 
Myers  f.  Eeed,  17  Fed.  401,  9  Sawy.   132. 

Indebtedness  of  purchaser  to  cotenant. — 
The  mere  fiact  that  the  purchaser  is  indebted 
to  his  cotenant  does  not  of  itself  give  the 
creditor  tenant  an  interest  in  such  purchase. 
King  V.  Wilson,  54  N.  J.  Eq.  247,  34  Atl. 
394;  Lewis  v.  Robinson,  10  Watts  (Pa.)   354. 

68.  Arkansas. —  Britton  x.  Handy,  20  Ark. 
381,  73  Am.  Dec.  497. 

California. —  Gunter  v.  Laffan,  7  Cal.  588. 
See  also  Tully  i;.  TuUy,  71  Cal.  338,  12  Pac. 
246. 

Indiana. —  Eyason  v.  Dunten,  164  Ind.  85, 
73  N.  E.  74;  Stevens  v.  Reynolds,  143  Ind. 
467,  41  N.  E.  931,  52  Am.  St.  Rep.  422;  Elston 
r.  Piggott,  94  Ind.  14. 

Massachusetts. —  ilatthews  v.  Bliss,  22 
Pick.   48. 

Missouri. —  Smith  v.  Washington,  1 1  Mo. 
App.  519. 

jN'eu)  York. — ^Van  Home  r.  Fonda,  5  Johns. 
Ch.  388. 

Sorth  Carolina. —  Jackson  v.  Baird,  148 
N.  C.  29,  61  S.  E.  632,  19  L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  591. 

Pennsylvania. —  Reinboth  r.  Zerbe  Run 
Imp.  Co.,  29  Pa.  St.  139. 

Tennessee. —  King  i.  Rowan,  10  Heisk. 
675. 

Texas. —  Rippetoe  v.  Dwyer,  49  Tex.  498; 
Roberts  v.  Thorn,  25  Tex.  728,  78  Am.  Dec. 
552;  Kiday  r.  Cochran,  42  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
292,  93  S.  W.  1027. 

Wisconsin. —  Frentz  v.  Klotseh,  28  Wis. 
312. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  56  et  seg. 

69.  King  V.  Rowan,  10  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  675; 
Roberts  v.  Thorn,  25  Tex.  728,  78  Am.  Dec. 
552 ;  Xiday  v.  Cochran,  42  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
292,  93  S.  W.  1027. 

If  the  cotenant  does  not  complain,  a 
stranger  to  whom  the  purchasing  cotenant 
stands  in  no  relation  of  trust  and  confidence 
cannot  complain.  Burgett  r.  Williford,  56 
Ark.  187,  19  S.  W.  750,  35  Am.  St.  Rep.  96. 

70.  Alalama. —  Given  r.  Troxel,  (1905)  39 
So.  578. 

Indiana. —  Ryason  r.  Dunten,  164  Ind.  85, 
73  N.  E.  74;  Jennings  f.  Moon,  135  Ind.  168, 
34  N".  E.  996. 

Michigan. —  Holmes  c.  Holmes,  129  JMich. 
412,  89  N.  W.  47,  95  Am.  St.  Rep.  444 ;  Wat- 
kins  i:  Green,  101  Mich.  493,  60  N.  W.  44; 
Sands  r.  Davis,  40  Mich.  14. 

Minnesota. —  Barteau  r.  Merriam,  52  Minn. 
222,  53  N.  W.  1061. 

[Ill,  D,  1,  b] 


Missouri. —  Potter  v.  Herring,  57  Mo.  184. 

Teoeas. —  Fielding  v.  White,  (Civ.  App 
1895)   32  S.  W.  1064. 

Virginia. —  Buchanan  v.  King,  22  Gratt. 
414. 

Washington. — •  Burnett  f.  Ewing,  39  Wash, 
45,  80  Pac.  855. 

Wisconsin. —  Frentz  v.  Klotseh,  28  Wis, 
312. 

United  States. —  Myers  v.  Reed,  17  Fed, 
401,   9  Sawy.   132. 

England. —  Kennedy  v.  De  Trafford,  (1897) 
A.  C.  180,  66  L.  J.  Ch.  413,  76  L.  T.  Rep 
X.  S.  427,  45  Wkly.  Rep.  671. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  56  et  seq. 

Acquiring  difierent  estates. — Where  one 
tenant  in  common,  under  a,  deed  conveying 
the  grantor's  equitable  interest,  acquires  the 
outstanding  legal  title,  such  lesal  title  does 
not  inure  to  the  benefit  of  his  said  cotenant 
(Nalle  r.  Thompson,  173  Mo.  595,  73  S.  W. 
599;  Kershaw  V.  Simpson,  46  Wash.  313,  89 
Pac.  889),  nor  where  the  grantee  of  one,  a 
stranger  to  the  common  title,  who  had  pur- 
chased the  property  at  a  foreclosure  sale, 
thereafter  purchased  the  legal  title  of  one  of 
the  cotenants  at  a  time  when  the  foreclosure 
was  not  complete,  by  reason  of  the  time  to 
redeem  not  having  expired,  so  that  the  estate 
of  the  grantee  of  the  purchaser  at  the  fore- 
closure sale  was  that  of  a  mortgagee  before 
foreclosure,  only  an  equitable  estate  or  in- 
terest in  which  the  right  to  hold  and  enforce 
his  interest  for  his  own  benefit  was  fixed  in 
the  absence  of  redemption ;  and  where  said 
grantee  did  no  act  on  which  a  merger  of  said 
equitable  estate  and  said  legal  estate  could 
be  predicated  (Given  t\  Troxel,  (Ala.  1905) 
39  So.  578  [distinguishing  Jones  v.  Matkin, 
118  Ala.  341,  24  So.  242];  Horton  v.  Maffitt, 
14  Minn.  289,  100  Am.  Dec.  222). 

Title  from  government.—  It  seems  that  the 
principle  that  the  purchase  by  one  cotenant 
inures  to  the  benefit  of  all  does  not  apply  to  a 
title  acquired  from  the  United  States  in  the 
absence  of  fraud  or  special  contract.  Sulli- 
van [-.  McLenans,  2  Iowa  437,  65  Am  Dec 
780. 

71.  Illinois. —  Montague  r.  Selb,  106  111. 
49. 

7oioa.— Phillips  r.  Wilmarth,  98  Iowa  32 
66  N.  W.  1053;  Leach  r.  Hall,  95  Iowa  61l' 
64  N.  W.  790. 

Kentucki/. —  Owings  i-.  McClain,  1  A  K 
Marsh.  230. 

New  Jersey.— Vmted  New  Jersey  R.,  etc.. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc]     45 


does  not  inure  to  the  benefit  of  a  cotenant  whenever  for  any  reason  the  tenancy 
has  terminated,"  and  the  same  principle  applies  whenever  the  outstanding  interest 
is  acquired  before  the  creation  of  the  relationship  of  cotenancy,"  or  where  the 
title  claimed  in  common  is  a  nullity,'*  or  where  the  outstanding  title  is  acquired 
by  one  whose  claim  to  the  common  property  is  not  in  recognition  of  or  subservient 
to  the  title  of  the  other  tenants  in  common  therein;  '^  and  since  the  principle 
that  the  one  in  possession  acts  on  behalf  of  aU  with  whom  he  has  a  common  interest 
in  the  property  is  based  largely  on  the  special  circumstances  under  and  intentions 
with  which  the  act  alleged  or  claimed  to  have  been  done  for  the  benefit  of  all 
was  performed,  and  as  presumption  generally  enters  very  largely  into  the  deter- 
mination of  the  intention  with  which  the  act  was  done,  it  necessarily  follows  that 
if  there  be  direct  evidence,  making  presumption  unnecessary,  the  question  of 
common  interest  will  be  determined  on  the  evidence  adduced  and  not  on  the  gen- 
eral rule  based  on  presumption."  Thus  the  purchase  of  a  reversion  by  one  cotenant 
is  riot  adverse  to  the  interest  of  his  termor  cotenant; ''  nor  is  the  purchase  by  one 
cotenant  of  a  life-estate  adverse  to  the  interests  of  the  cotenants  in  the  remainder;  " 
nor,  the  evidence  not  showing  distinctly  that  the  purchase  was  made  on  behalf 
of  the  cotenants,  does  the  purchase  by  one  of  them  of  certain  land  excepted  from 
the  conveyance  under  which  they  acquired  title  from  one  who  had  bought  in 
both  tracts  at  tax-sale,  create  a  trust.!'    The  purchase  of  an  outstanding  title 


Co.  t.  Ck)nsolidated  Fruit  Jar  Co.,  (Oh.  1903) 
55  Atl.  46. 

South  Dakota. —  Johnson  v.  Branch,  9  S.  D. 
116,  68  N.  W.  173,  62  Am.  St.  Rep.  857. 

West  Virginia. —  Cecil  v.  Clark,  44  W.  Va. 
659,  30  S.  E.  216. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  55  et  seq. 

72.  Johnson  v.  Toulmin,  18  Ala.  50,  62 
Am.  Dec.  212;  Jackson  v.  Burtis,  14  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)    391;   Eeinhoth  v.   Zerbe  Run  Imp. 

Co.,  29  Pa.  St.  139;  In  re  Biss,  (1903)  2  Ch. 
40,  4&;  Hunter  v.  Allen,  (1907)  1  Ir.  R.  212. 
See  also  Alexander  v.  Sully,  50  Iowa  192; 
Coleman  f.  Coleman,  3  Dana  (Ky.)  398,  28 
Am.  Dec.  86;  Sweetland  f.  Buell,  89  Hun 
(N.  Y.)  543,  35  N.  Y.  Suppl.  346  [affirmed 
in  164  N.  Y.  541,  58  N.  E.  663,  79  Am.  St. 
Rep.  676]. 

Purchase  after  lapse  of  period  of  redemp- 
tion.— Where  land  is  owned  by  tenants  in 
common  and  sold  for  payment  of  taxes,  and 
the  period  of  redemption  has  fully  elapsed, 
the  purchase  of  the  land  by  one  of  the  ten- 
ants in  common  will  not  inure  to  the  benefit 
of  all  of  them.  Jonas  v.  Flanniken,  69  Miss. 
577,  11  So.  319;  Jackson  v.  Burtis,  14  Johns. 
(K.  Y.)  391;  Wells  f.  Chapman,  4  Sandf.  Ch. 
(N.  Y.)  312  [affirmed  in  13  Barb.  561];  Sut- 
ton V.  Jenkins,  147  N.  C.  11,  60  S.  E.  643; 
Eeinboth  f.  Zerbe  Run  Imp.  Co.,  29  Pa.  St. 
139;  Kirkpatrick  v.  Mathiot,  4  Watts  &  S. 
(Pa.)  251;  Keele  V.  Cunningham,  2  Heisk. 
(Tenn.)  288. 

Cotenancy  having  been  severed  by  a  sale 
under  a  decree  of  partition  to  one  of  the  co- 
tenants  therein,  and  taxes,  constituting  a 
lien  at  time  of  said  sale,  having  been  subse- 
quently paid  by  said  purchaser,  it  was  held 
that  he  made  such  payment  in  the  character 
of  purchaser.     Stephens  v.  Ells,  65  Mo.  456. 

73.  Alalama.— Qiv&n  V.  Troxel,  (1905)  39 
So.  578. 

Arkansas. —  Brittin  v.  Handy,  20  Ark.  381, 
73  Am.  Dec.  497. ' 


Illinois. — Webster  v.  Webster,  55  HI.  325. 

Indiana. —  Elston  v.  Piggott,  94  Ind.  14 ; 
Hatfield  v.  Mahoney,  39  Ind.  App.  499,  79 
N.  E.  408',  1086. 

Kentucky. —  Sneed  v.  Atherton,  6  Dana  276, 
32  Am.  Dec.  70. 

Minnesota. —  See  Hoyt  v.  Lightbody,  98 
Minn.  189,  108  N.  W.  843,  116  Am.  St.  Rep. 
358. 

Mississippi. —  Jonas  v.  Flanniken,  69  Miss. 
577,  11  So.  319: 

Nebraska. —  Mills  v.  Miller,  4  Nebr.  441. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  56  et  seq. 

74.  Bornheimer  v.  Baldwin,  42  Cal.  27; 
Burhans  r.  Van  Zandt,  7  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  91 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  7  N.  Y.  523, 
Seld.  Notes  31] ;  Niday  v.  Cochran,  42  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  292,  93  S.  W.  1027 ;  Cecil  v.  Clark, 
44  W.  Va.  659,  30  S.  E.  216.  But  see 
Clements  t:  Gates,  49  Ark.  242,  4  S.  W.  776, 
holding  that  a  cotenant  may  be  liable  to 
account  as  trustee  where  he  purchases  an 
outstanding  title,   even  though  the  title  de- 

,  rived  by  him  and  his  cotenants  from  a  com- 
mon ancestor  be  defective  or  void. 

75.  Smith  v.  Hamakua  Mill  Co.,  13  Hawaii 
716 ;  Niday  v.  Cochran,  42  Tex.  Civ.  App.  292, 
93  S.  W.  1027. 

76.  Gillett  V.  Gaffney,  3  Colo.  351;  Lar- 
man«.  Huey,  13  B.  Men.  (Ky.)  436;  Streeter 
V.  Shultz,  45  Hun  (N.  Y.)  406  [affirmed  in 
127  N.  Y.  652,  27  N.  E.  857] ;  Phelan  v. 
Kelly,  25  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  389;  Watson  v. 
Watson,  198  Pa.  St.  234,  47  Atl.  1096;  Wat- 
son V.  Watson,  31  Pittsb.  Leg.  J.  N.  S.  (Pa.) 
91. 

77.  Eamberg  v.  Wahlstrom,  140  111.  182, 
29  N.  E.  727,  33  Am.  St.  Rep.  227 ;  Kershaw 
V.  Simpson,  46  Wash.  313,  89  Pac.  889. 

78.  McLaughlin  v.  McLaughlin,  80  Md. 
115,  30  Atl.  607;  Fox  f.  Coon,  64  Miss.  465, 
1   So.   629. 

79.  Brickell  v.  Earley,  115  Pa.  St.  473,  8 
Atl.  623. 

[Ill,  D,  1,  b] 


46     [38  Cye.j 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


by  a  tenant  in  common  to  purchase  peace  does  not  inure  to  the  benefit  of  his 
cotenants  who  were  made  his  co-defendants  but  failed  to  join  him  in  the  defense. '" 
e.  Contribution;  Lien.  The  liabiUty  of  cotenants  as  between  themselves,  for 
the  payment  of  liens  against  the  common  estate,  is  proportionate  to  their 
respective  iaterests.''  Therefore  the  purchase  or  discharge  of  an  encum- 
brance, lien,  or  outstanding  title  for  the  benefit  of  the  common  property 
entitles  him  who  so  purchases  to  contribution  from  each  of  his  cotenants  to 
the  expense  which  releases  the  common  interest  from  embarrassment  or  perfects 
the  title  thereto,  the  right  of  the  non-purchasing  cotenants  to  share  in  the  benefit 
of  a  purchase  being  dependent  on  their  election,  within  a  reasonable  time,  to  bear 
their  portion  of  the  expenses  necessarily  incurred  in  said  purchase.  They  cannot 
ordinarily  share  in  the  benefit  of  the  purchase  without  contributing  or  tendering 
their  proportionate  shares   of  the   cost  and  expense, °^  such   contribution  being 


80.  Asher  r.  Howard,  70  S.  W.  277,  24  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  961. 

81.  Oliver  r.  Lansing,  57  Xebr.  352,  77 
N.  W.  802. 

82.  Alabama. —  Newbold  r.  Smart,  67  Ala. 
326 ;  Thomas  f.  Hearn,  2  Port.  262. 

California. —  Stevenson  v.  Boyd,  153  Cal. 
630,  96  Pac.  284,  19  L.  E.  A.  X.  S.  525; 
McCord  V.  Oakland  Quicksilver  ilin.  Co.,  64 
Cal.  134,  27  Pac.  863,  49  Am.  Rep.  686; 
Mandeville  f.  Solomon,  39  Cal.  125. 

Colorado. —  Franklin  Min.  Co.  v.  O'Brien, 
22  Colo.  129,  43  Pac.  1016,  55  Am.  St.  Rep. 
118. 

Florida. — Walker  f.  Sarven,  41  Fla.  210, 
25   So.  885. 

Illinois. —  Salem  Xat.  Bank  f.  White,  159 
III.  136,  42  X.  E.  312;  Smith  r.  Osborne,  86 
III.  606 ;  Wilton  v.  Tazwell,  86  111.  29 ;  Busch 
r.  Huston,  75  111.  343;  Burr  f.  Mueller,  65 
III.  258;  Titsworth  v.  Stout,  49  111.  78,  95 
Am.  Dec.  577;  Ott  r.  Flinspach,  143  111.  App. 
61;  Querney  v.  Quernev,  127  111.  App.  75; 
Case  V.  Case,  103  111.  App.  177. 

Indiana. —  Stevens  v.  Reynolds,  143  Ind. 
467,  41  X^  E.  931,  52  Am.  St.  Rep.  422;  Moon 
t:  Jennings,  119  Ind.  130,  20  N.  E.  748,  21 
N".  E.  471,  12  Am.  St.  Rep.  383. 

Iowa. — Austin  v.  Barrett,  44  Iowa  488; 
Flinn  i:  McKinley,  44  Iowa  68.  Compare 
Koboliska  r.  Swehla,  107  Iowa  124,  77  N.  W. 
576. 

Kansas. —  Farmers'  Xat.  Bank  t".  Robinson, 
(1898)   53  Pac.  762. 

Kentucky. —  Lee  f.  Fox,  6  Dana  171;  Ven- 
able  f.  Beauchamp,  3  Dana  321,  28  Am.  Dec. 
74;  Asher  v.  Howard,  70  S.  W.  277,  24  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  961. 

Maine. —  Coburn  V.  Page,  105  Me.  458,  74 
Atl.  1026,  134  Am.  St.  Rep.  575;  Moore  r. 
Gibson,  53  lie.  551;  Reed  v.  Bachelder,  34 
Me.  205. 

Maryland. —  Darcey  v.  Bayne,  105  Md.  365, 
66  Atl.  434,  10  L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  863. 

Massachusetts. —  Blodgett  r.  Hildreth,  8 
Allen  186;  Dickinson  v.  Williams,  11  Gush. 
258,  59  Am.  Dec.  142. 

Minnesota. —  Fritz  v.  Eamspott,  76  Minn. 
48fl,  79  X^.  W.  520 ;  Ohio  Iron  Co.  i\  Auburn 
Iron  Co.,  64  Minn.  404,  67  N.  W.  221 ;  Oliver 
V.  Hedderly,  32  Minn.  455,  21  X^  W.  478. 

Mississippi. —  Harrison  v.  Harrison,  56 
Miss.  174. 

Missouri. —  Kohle  v.  Hobson,  215  Mo.  213, 

[ni,  D,  1,  b] 


114  S.  W.  952;  Mahoney  v.  X'^evins,  190  Mo. 
360,  88  S.  W.  731;  Jones  v.  Stanton,  11  Mo. 
433;  Schneider  Granite  Co.  v.  Taylor,  64 
Mo.  App.  37,  holding  that  one  who  has  paid 
a  judgment  rendered  in  a  suit  to  enforce  a 
special  tax  bill  may  maintain  an  action  for 
contribution  against  his  coowners  who  were 
not  made  parties  to  the  suit. 

Xebraska. —  Craven    v.    Craven,    68    Xebr. 

459,   94   N.   W.   604;    Carson   c.   Broady,   56 

X'ebr.  648,  77  X.  W.  80,  71  Am.  St.  Rep.  691. 

Nevada. —  Boskowitz  v.  Davis,  12  Nev.  446. 

Xew  Jersey. — Weller  v.  Rolason,   17  X.  J. 

Eq.  13. 

New  York. —  Quackenbush  t:  Leonard,  9 
Paige  334;  Van  Home  v.  Fonda,  5  Johns.  Ch. 
388;  Burrell  v.  Bull,  3  Sandf.  Ch.  15. 

North  Carolina. — -Holt  r.  Couch,  125  X.  C. 
456,  34  S.  E.  703,  74  Am.  St.  Rep.  648. 

Oregon. —  Crawford  v.  O'Counell,  39  Oreg. 
153,  64  Pac.  656. 

Pennsylvania. —  McGranighan  v.  McGran- 
ighan,  6  Pa.  Dist.  33,  19  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  75 ;  Hite 
r.  Hite,  21  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  97. 

Rhode  Island. — -Green  f.  Walker,  22  E.  I. 
14,  45  Atl.  742. 

Tennessee. —  Gass  r.  Waterhouse,  ( Ch. 
App.  1900)  61  S.  W.  450. 

Texas. —  X'iday  r.  Cochran,  42  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  292,  93  S.  W.  1027;  McFarlin  v.  Lea- 
man,  (Civ.  App.  1895)  29  S.  W.  44;  Branch 
V.  Makeig,  9  Tex.  Civ.  App.  399,  28  S.  W. 
1050.  See  also  Thomas  v.  Morrison,  (Civ. 
App.)  46  S.  W.  46,  holding  that  where  an  at- 
torney, recovering  land  for  a  client  under  an 
agreement  to  convey  a  certain  portion  thereof 
to  said  attorney  for  his  services,  was  com- 
pelled to  buy  an  outstanding  claim  because 
of  the  client's  fraudulent  acts,  the  attorney 
was  entitled  to  contribution  according  to 
their  respective  shares.  Compare  Peak  v. 
Brinson,  71  Tex.  310,  11  S.  W.  269. 

Virginia. —  Grove  v.  Grove,  100  Va.  556,  42 
S.  E.  312;  Ballou  v.  Ballou,  94  Va.  350,  26 
S.  E.  840,  64  Am.  St.  Rep.  773;  Pillow  r. 
Southwest  Imp.  Co.,  92  Va.  144,  23  S.  E  32 
53  Am.  St.  Rep.  804. 

Washington. —  Kershaw  r.  Simpson  46 
Wash.  313,  89  Pac.  889;  Burnett  v.  Kirk,  39 
Wash.  45,  80  Pac.  855 ;  Cedar  Canyon  Consol 
Min.  Co.  v.  Yarwood,  27  Wash.  271,  67  Pac 
749,  91  Am.  St.  Eep.  841. 

West  Virginia. —  Morris  r.  Eoseberry  46 
W.  Va.  24,  32  S.  E.  1019;  Ward  v.  Ward,  40 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc]    47 


proportionate  to  the  respective  interests;  *'  and  although  the  purchasing  tenant  in 
common  cannot  purchase  an  outstanding  interest  against  his  cotenant,  he  is 
nevertheless  entitled  to  hold  his  deed  as  security  for  the  money  paid."  A 
tenant  in  common  relieving  the  common  property  from  a  mortgage,  lien, 
or  charge  for  the  joint  benefit  of  the  tenants  in  common  is  entitled  to  an  equitable 
lien  by  subrogation,  and  to  contribution  from  his  respective  cotenants  out  of 
their  respective  interests  in  the  common  property.'^    The  foregoing  rules  are 


W.  Va.  611,  29  L.  E.  A.  449,  21  S.  E.  746, 
52  Am.  St.  Rep.  911. 

'Wisconsin. — •  McLaughlin  t.  Curts,  27  Wis. 
644,  holding  that  payment  of  a  mortgage  on 
common  property  before  sale,  given  by  the 
tenants  thereof  for  their  joint  debt,  entitles 
the  cotenant  so  paying  before  Sale  to  contri- 
bution. Compare  Tipping  v.  Robbins,  71  Wis. 
607,  37  N.  W.  427. 

United  States. —  Rothwell  f.  Dewees,  2 
Black  613,  7  L.  ed.  309. 

Canada. —  In  re  Currv,  25  Ont.  App.  267 
[affirming  17  Ont.  Pr.  379]. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  59  et  seq. 

But  see  Norris  v.  Hill,  1  Mich.  202  (hold- 
ing that,  although  the  owners  of  the  three 
quarters  of  a  water  power  be  compelled  to 
purchase  a  piece  of  land  to  secure  to  the 
proprietors  of  the  power  the  right  to  flow  it, 
yet  a  court  of  equity  will  not  decree  contri- 
bution by  the  owner  of  the  remaining  quar- 
ter) ;  Boskowitz  V.  Davis,  12  Nev.  446  (hold- 
ing that  the  principle  applies  only  where  the 
purchasing  cotenant  desires  payment  and  con- 
ducts himself  accordingly  and  where  he  does 
not  act  as  though  he  had  intended  his  ex- 
penditure to  be  a  gratuity  to  his  cotenants ) . 

Too  long  delay  to  contribute  to  the  pur- 
chase-price abandons  all  benefits.  Morns  v. 
Roseberry,  46  W.  Va.  24,  32  S.  E.  1019. 

Even  though  a  claim  therefor  would  be 
barred  by  limitations  in  an  independent  ac- 
tion brought  for  such  contribution,  in  parti- 
tion proceedings  contribution  will  be  en- 
forced against  a  cotenant.  Querney  v.  Quer- 
ney,  127  111.  App.  75. 

Right  as  affected  by  agreement. —  The  pur- 
chasing cotenant  is  not  entitled  to  contribu- 
tion from  his  cotenants  where  he  has  entered 
into  an  arrangement  whereby  a  third  party, 
in  consideration  of  such  purchase,  became 
solely  liable  for  contribution  to  the  pur- 
chaser.    Mills  V.  Miller,  4  Nebr.  441. 

One  tenant  in  common  of  an  estate  in  ex- 
pectancy has  no  right  to  discharge  a  burden 
on  the  estate  in  the  hands  of  a  life-tenant 
in  possession,  and  to  demand  contribution 
from  his  cotenants  therein,  except  where  it 
is  necessary  to  prevent  a  destruction  of  the 
expectancy.  Harrison  f.  Harrison,  56  Miss. 
174. 

A  tenant  in  common  of  an  equity  of  re- 
demption paying  the  whole  mortgage  debt 
cannot  seek  contribution  from  his  cotenants 
personally,  but  can  merely  foreclose  their  in- 
terests if  they  fail  to  pay  their  share.  Lyon 
V.  Robbins,  45  Conn.  513. 

The  light  does  not  pass  to  a  mortgagee  of 
the  cotenant's  interest  under  a  mortgage  con- 
veying his  undivided  interest  in  the  common 


property.     Oliver   i:   Lansing,  57   Nebr.   352, 
77  N.  W.  802. 

There  is  no  personal  claim  beyond  said 
lien  against  said  cotenant  or  his  estate  after 
his  decease.  McLaughlin  v.  Curts,  27  Wis. 
644. 

Interest. —  If  a  tenant  in  common  claims 
contribution  because  of  the  purchase  of  an 
outstanding  lien,  claim,  or  title,  he  is  not 
entitled  to  the  payment  of  statutory  puai 
tive  interest  generally  provided  for  pui 
chasers  of  like  claims,  liens,  or  titles,  bul 
only  to  the  ordinary  legal  rat6  of  interest. 
Phipps  V.  Phipps,  47  Kan.  328,  27  Pac.  972. 
If  he  purchases  adjoining  land,  thus  coming 
into  possession  of  a  necessary  easement  of 
way,  he  may  be  entitled,  under  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  to  legal  interest  on  the 
purchase-price  of  the  land,  if  the  tort  be 
waived  and  an  accounting  had.  Cecil  v. 
Clarke,  49  W.  Va.  459,  39  S.  E.  202. 

83.  Titsworth  v.  Stout,  49  111.  78,  95  Am. 
Dec.  577. 

The  rule  is  enforced  against  the  husband 
or  wife  of  a  cotenant  so  purchasing  an  out- 
standing interest,  encumbrance,  or  conflict- 
ing claim  or  tendering  money  therefor  or  in 
satisfaction  thereof,  and  such  husband  or  wife 
will  be  entitled  to  contribution  the  same 
as  a  cotenant  might  otherwise  be.  Smith  v. 
Smith,  68  Iowa  608,  27  N.  W.  780;  Perkins 
V.  Smith,  37  S.  W.  72,  18  Ky.  L.  Rep.  509; 
Beaman  f.  Beaman,  90  Miss.  762,  44  So.  987 ; 
Chace  v.  Durfee,  16  R.  I.  248,  14  Atl.  919. 

84.  McCrary  v.  Glover,  100  Ga.  90,  20 
S.  E.  lCi2;  Chace  v.  Durfee,  16  R.  I.  248,  14 
Atl.  919.  But  see  Jennings  V.  Moon,  135  Ind. 
168,  34  N.  E.  996. 

One  who  has  paid  more  than  his  share  of 
the  purchase-price  of  the  property  comes 
within  the  rule,  even  though  it  be  admitted 
that  such  expenditures,  not  being  for  the  ex- 
tinguishment of  any  lien,  do  not  entitle  him 
to  a  lien  by  subrogation.  Funk  v.  Seehorn, 
99  Mo.  App.  587,  74  S.  W.  445. 

85.  Alabama. —  Newbold  v.  Smart,  67  Ala. 
326. 

Arkansas. —  Moore  v.  Woodall,  40  Ark.  42. 

California. —  Calkins  v.  Steinbach,  66  Cal. 
117,  4  Pac.  1103. 

Illinois. —  Glos  v.  Clark,  97  111.  App.  609 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  199  111.  147, 
65  2Sr.  E.  135];  GrifSth  v.  Robinson,  14  111. 
App.  377. 

Indiana. —  Moon  v.  Jennings,  119  Ind.  130, 
20  N.  E.  748,  21  N.  E.  471,  12  Am.  St.  Rep. 
383;  Eads  v.  Retherford,  114  Ind.  273,  16 
N.  E.  587,  5  Am.  St.  Rep.  611. 

Iowa. —  Oliver  v.  Montgomery,  42  Iowa  36. 

Maine. —  Moore  v.  Gibson,  53  Me.  551. 

Massachusetts. —  Hurley     v.     Hurley,     148 

[ni,D,  l,e] 


48     [38  Cycl 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


not  applicable  to  such  a  purchase  by  one  at  a  time  prior  to  becoming  a  tenant  in 
common  with  the  others,'"  and  the  right  does  not  attach  where  a  mortgage  debt 
is  paid  after  its  discharge;  *'  nor  where  there  is  a  primary  duty  on  another  to  have 
discharged  the  lien  and  it  does  not  appear  that  such  payment  was  made  because 
of  the  failure  of  the  party  primarily  liable  to  make  it;  *'  nor  where  a  claim  for 
contribution  is  stale,  because  of  laches  or  limitations.*'  Notice,  actual  or  con- 
structive, of  the  purchase  of  an  outstanding  title  must  be  brought  home  to  a 
cotenant  before  his  right  to  contribute  thereto  is  lost.'"  An  action  at  law  may  be 
maintained  between  cotenants  for  the  recovery  of  money  expended  by  some  of 
them  for  the  removal  of  a  joint  lien  or  encumbrance,  where  sanctioned  by  statute 
or  public  policy.  ^^  A  presumption  of  repudiation  of  a  transaction  in  relation  to, 
or  of  abandonment  of,  a  cotenancy  may  arise  where  a  cotenant  has  for  a  long 
time  failed  to  do  any  act  of  ownership  in  relation  to  the  common  property  or  has 
failed  to  contribute  or  offer  contribution  toward  the  purchase  of  some  outstanding 
interest.'^ 

2.  Extinguishment  of  Tax  Claim  and  Purchase  of  Tax  Title  —  a.  Right  to 
Extinguish  or  Purchase,  and  Effect  Thereof.  One  tenant  in  common  may  redeem 
for  himself  and  for  his  cotenants  the  common  land  sold  for  taxes.''  The 
purchase  of  the  outstanding  tax  title  for  the  entire  property,  by  or  for  the 
tenant  in  common,  operates  as  a  payment  of  the  tax  and  an  extinguishment 
of  the  tax  title,"*  and  the  deed  given  to  one  of  the  tenants  in  common,  who 
was  the  purchaser,  simply  acts  as  a  discharge  of  the  taxes  assessed  on  the 
land.°^  The  rules  above  stated  in  relation  to  the  purchase  of  outstanding  interests 
generally ""  apply  with  full  force  to  the  acquisition  of  tax  titles  by  one  or  more 
cotenants  less  than  the  whole  number;  thus  if  one  or  more  of  several  tenants 
in  common  redeem  from  or  purchase  the  property  at  a  tax-sale,  either  by  them- 
selves or  through  a  third  person,  the  title  thus  acquired  inures  to  the  benefit 


Mass.  444,  19  N.  E.  545,  2  L.  R.  A.  172; 
Blodgett  V.  Hildreth,  8  Allen  186. 

Minnesota. —  Fritz  x.  Ramspott,  76  Minn. 
489,  79  N.  W.  520. 

Mississippi. — ■  Davidson  v.  Wallace,  53 
Miss.  475,  so  holding,  although  there  is  no 
express  agreement. 

Missouri. — ■  Mahoney  i".  Nevins,  190  Mo. 
360,  88  S.  W.  731. 

Nebraska. —  Oliver  v.  Lansing,  57  Nebr. 
352,  77  N.  W.  802. 

New  Jersey. —  Thiele  r.  Thiele,  57  N.  J.  Eq. 
98,  40  Atl.  446. 

Rhode  Island. — •  Green  v.  Walker,  22  R.  I. 
14,  45  Atl.  742. 

Texas. —  Niday  r.  Cochran,  42  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  292,  93  S.  W.  1027;  Branch  v.  Mak«ig, 
9  Tex.  Civ.  App.  399,  28  S.  W.  1050. 

FermoTC*.— Deavitt  v.  Ring,  73  Vt.  298,  50 
Atl.  1066. 

Virginia. —  Grove  V.  Grove,  100  Va.  556, 
42  S.  E.  312. 

Wisconsin. —  Connell  l".  Welch,  101  Wis.  8, 
76  N.  W.  596;  McLaughlin  i:  Curts,  27  Wis. 
644. 

•United  States. —  McClintock  v.  Fontaine, 
119  Fed.  448. 

The  lien  may  be  enforced  against  the  co- 
tenant's  grantee.  Young  r.  Bigger,  73  Kan. 
146,  84  Pac.  747. 

86.  Carson  v.  Broady,  56  Nehr.  648,  77 
N.  W.  80,  71  Am.  St.  Rep.  691;  Downey  v. 
Strouse,   101  Va.  226,  43  S.  E.  348. 

87.  Rentz  v.  Eckert,  74  Conn.  11,  49  Atl. 
203. 

[Ill,  D,  1,  e] 


88.  Booth  V.  Booth,  114  Iowa  78,  86  N.  W. 
51. 

89.  Peak  v.  Brinson,  71  Tex.  310,  11  S.  W. 
269. 

90.  Niday  i:  Cochran,  42  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
292,  93  S.  W.  1027. 

91.  Dickinson  v.  Williams,  11  Cush.  (Mass.) 
258,  59  Am.  Dec.   142. 

93.  Johnson  v.  Touhnin,  18  Ala.  50,  52 
Am'.  Dec.  212;  Mandeville  f.  Solomon,  39 
Cal.  125;  Nalle  v.  Parks,  173  Mo.  616,  73 
S.  W.  596. 

93.  Horner  f.  Ellis,  75  Kan.  675,  90  Plac. 
275,  121  Am.  St.  Rep.  446;  Halsey  v.  Blood, 
29  Pa.  St.  319.  And  see  cases  cited  infra, 
the  following  notes. 

94.  Michigan. —  Sleight  f.  Roe,  125  Mich. 
585,  85  N.  W.  10. 

Minnesota. —  Easton  v.  Scofield,  66  Minn. 
425,  69  N.  W.  326. 

Mississippi. —  Falkner  v.  Thurmond,  (1898) 
23  So.  584. 

West  Virginia. —  Cecil  r.  Clark,  49  W.  Va. 
459,  39  S.  E.  202 ;  Parker  v.  Brast,  45  W.  Va. 
399,  32  S.  E.  269;  Curtis  v.  Borland,  35 
W.  Va.  124,  12  S.  E,  1113;  Battin  v.  Woods, 
27  W.  Va.  58. 

Wisconsin. —  Hannig  v.  Mueller,  82  Wis. 
235,  52  N.  W.  98. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  60  et  seq. 

95.  Cocks  V.  Simmons,  55  Ark.  104,  17 
S.  W^  594,  29  Am.  St.  Rep.  28;  Downer  v 
Smith,  38  Vt.  464. 

96.  See  supra,  III,  D,  1,  a. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc]     49 


of  their  cotenants/'  particularly  where  there  are  circumstances  of  unfair  advantage 
or  double  dealing/*  or  where  the  redeeming  cotenant  allowed  the  taxes  to  become 


97.  Alabama. —  Eussell  v.  Bell,  160  Ala. 
480,  49  So.  314;  Johns  v.  Johns,  93  Ala.  239, 
9  So.  419;  Donnor  x..  Quartermas,  90  Ala. 
164,  8  So.  715,  24  Am.  St.  Kep.  778. 

Arkansas. —  Burgett  v.  Willlford,  56  Ark. 
187,  19  S.  W.  750,  35  Am.  St.  Hep.  96 ;  Cocks 
f.  Simmons,  55  Ark.  104,  17  S.  W.  594,  29 
Am.  St.  Eep.  28. 

California. —  Emeric  v.  Alvarado,  90  Cal. 
444,  27  Pac.  356. 

District  of  Columhia. — Alexander  v.  Doug- 
lass, 6  D.  C.  247. 

Illinois. —  Lomax  v.  Gindele,  117  111.  527, 
7  N.  E.  483;  Bracken  v.  Cooper,  80  111.  221. 

Indiana. —  English  f.  Powell,  119  Ind.  93, 
21  N.  E.  458. 

Iowa. —  Cooper  f.  Brown,  143  Iowa  482, 
122  N.  W.  144;  Funson  i:  Bradt,  105  Iowa 
471,  75  N.  W.  337;  Van  Ormer  v.  Harley, 
102  Iowa  150,  71  N.  W.  241;  Willcuts  V. 
Rollins,  85  Iowa  247,  52  N.  W.  199;  Clark 
V.  Brown,  70  Iowa  139,  30  N.  W.  46;  Shell 
r.  Walker,  54  Iowa  386,  6  N.  W.  581 ;  Sheean 
V.  Shaw,  47  Iowa  411;  Fallon  v.  Chidester, 
46  Iowa  588,  26  Am.  Eep.  164;  Flinn  v. 
McKinley,  44  Iowa  68. 

Kansas. —  Muthersbaugh  v.  Burke,  33  Kan. 
260,  6  Pac.  252. 

Louisiana. — ■  Duson  v.  Eoos,  123  La.  835, 
49  So.  590,  131  Am.  St.  Eep.  375. 

Maine. — Williams  v.  Gray,  3  Me.  207,  14 
Am.  Dec.  234. 

Michigan. —  Dahlem  v.  Abhott,  146  Mich. 
605,  110  N.  W.  47;  Eichards  v.  Eichards,  75 
Mich.  408,  42  N.  W.  954;  Butler  v.  Porter, 
13  Mich.  292;  Page  v.  Websier,  8  Mich.  263, 
77  Am.  Dec.  446. 

Mississippi. —  Harrison  v.  Harrison,  56 
Miss.  174 ;  Allen  v.  Poole,  54  Miss.  323. 

New  Hampshire. —  Barker  v.  Jones,  62 
N.  H.  497,  13  Am.  St.  Eep.  413. 

New  Jersey. —  Roll  v.  Everett,  (1908)  71 
Atl.  2«3. 

New  York. —  Knolls  v.  Barnhart,  71  N.  Y. 
474. 

North  Carolina. —  Smith  f.  Smith,  150 
N.  C.  81,  63  S.  E.  177. 

Oregon. —  Minter  v.  Durham,  13  Oreg.  470, 
11  Pac.  231,  holding  also  that  in  a  suit,  be- 
tween cotenants,  where  title  is  claimed 
through  a  tax-sale,  evidence  is  admissible  to 
show  the  amount  of  rents  collected  by  such 
grantee. 

Pennsylvania. —  Davis  v.  King,  87  Pa.  St. 
261. 

South  Dakota. —  Barrett  v.  McCarty,  20 
S.  D.  75,  104  N.  W.  907. 

Fej-OTOra*.— Willard  v.  Strong,  14  Vt.  532, 
39  Am.  Dec.  240. 

Washington. —  Stone  v.  Marshall,  52  Wash. 
375,  lOO  Pac.  858. 

West  Virginia. — Parker  v.  Brast,  45  W.  Va. 
399,  32  S.  E.  269;  Cecil  v.  Clark,  44  W.  Va. 
659,  30  S.  E.  216;  Bottin  v.  Woods,  27 
W.  Va.  58. 

Wisconsin. —  Miller    v.    Donahue,    96    Wis. 
498,  71  N.  W.  900. 
[4] 


See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  60. 

Even  though  the  tax  certificate  was  ac- 
quired before  he  became  such  tenant  in  com- 
mon, or  although  he  be  the  assignee  of  one 
so  acquiring  said  certificate,  the  rule  applies. 
Tice  V.  Derby,  59  Iowa  312,  13  N.  W.  301; 
Flinn  v.  McKinley,  44  Iowa  68. 

The  grantee  of  a  cotenant  purchasing  the 
common  property  at  a  tax-sale  cannot  avail 
himself  as  against  the  other  cotenant  of  the 
benefit  of  a  artatute  providing  that  actual 
occupation  for  a  certain  time  after  such  sale 
shall  bar  all  suits  to  recover  the  land  for 
defect  in  the  proceedings.  Jonas  V.  Flanni- 
ken,  69  Miss.  577,  11  So.  319. 

Purchase  with  rents  and  profits. — Where  a 
tenant  in  common  applied  the  rents  and 
profits  in  his  hands  to  the  .  purchase  of  an 
outstanding  tax  certificate  and  took  a  deed 
to  himself  thereunder,  he  is  not  allowed  to 
invoke  the  protection  of  the  statute  of  limi- 
tations applicable  to  tax-sales.  Bender  i'. 
Stewart,  75  Ind.  88. 

Purchase  for  or  through  strangers. — An 
agreement  with  a  stranger  that  a  cotenant 
will  bid  in  the  common  property  for  the  bene- 
fit of  the  stranger  or  that  a  stranger  will 
purchase  it  for  the  benefit  of  a  cotenant 
therein,  in  whole  or  in  part,  does  not  vary 
the  rule  so  far  as  the  interests  of  the  co- 
tenants  are  concerned  (Fields  v.  Farmers', 
etc.,  Bank,  110  Ky.  257,  61  S.  W.  258,  22  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  1708;  Holterhoff  r.  Mead,  36  Minn. 
42,  29  N.  W.  675;  Tanney  v.  Tanney,  24 
Pittsb.  Leg.  J.  N.  S.  (Pa.)  43  [affirmed  in 
159  Pa.  St.  277,  28  Atl.  287,  39  Am.  St.  Rep. 
678] )  ;  nor  can  such  interest  be  defeated  by 
the  mere  fact  that  one  of  the  cotenants  ac- 
quiesced in  a  plan  by  which  his  own  children, 
through  another  person,  were  to  purchase 
the  property,  which  plan  was  never  carried 
out  (Eichards  v.  Eichards,  31  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
509). 

The  taking  of  an  assignment  of  a  tax  deed 
by  one  of  the  tenants  in  common  gives  him 
no  independent  title  as  against  his  cotenants. 
Lloyd  V.  Lynch,  28  Pa.  St.  419,  70  Am.  Dec. 
137. 

An  intervener  under  a  quitclaim  deed,  or 
an  assignee  with  knowledge,  from  one  not 
entitled  to  claim  the  benefit  of  the  tax  deed 
against  the  cotenants  cannot  be  in  any  better 
position  than  his  grantor.  Conn  v.  Conn, 
58  Iowa  747,  13  N.  W.  51  (holding  that 
where  a  wife  mortgaged  her  homestead,  in- 
cluding her  share  inherited  from  a  deceased 
child,  and  the  mortgage  was  subsequently 
foreclosed,  the  purchaser  at  the  mortgage 
sale  became  a  tenant  in  common  with  the 
surviving  heirs,  and  could  not  acquire  a  tax 
title  to  the  prejudice  of  his  cotenants;  and 
an  intervener  holding  under  a  quitclaim  deed 
from  him  had  no  better  right)  ;  Phipps  v. 
Phipps,  47  Kan.  328,  27  Pac.  972. 

98.  Illinois. —  Brown  v.  Hogle,  30  111.  119, 
holding  that  to  become  a  purchaser   of  the 

[III,  D,  2,  a] 


50     [38  Cyc.j 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


delinquent/"  the  rule  being  based  on  community  of  interest  in  a  common  title 
between  parties  having  a  common  possession  and  a  common  interest  in  the  safety 
thereof,'  and  payment  of  all  taxes  by  one  tenant  in  common  inures  to  the  benefit 
of  all.^  Where,  however,  cotenants  are  permitted  to  protect  their  respective 
interests  by  the  payment  of  the  taxes  thereon,  the  several  interests  of  the  cotenants 
may  be  sold  for  non-payment  of  their  respective  shares  of  the  taxes,  although 
their  cotenants  may  have  paid  the  taxes  on  their  own  respective  shares.'  Rents 
and  profits  must  be  applied  to  the  payment  of  tax  claims  against  the  common 
property  in  preference  to  permitting  any  statutes  of  limitations  to  apply  as  between 
the  cotenants.*  Where  the  relation  of  tenancy  in  common  does  not  exist  at  the 
time  of  the  acquirement  of  the  outstanding  tax  title,  the  rule  does  not  apply,^ 
and  one  owning  an  undivided  interest  in  land,  adversely  claiming  title  to  the 
whole  and  being  in  actual  possession  thereof,  may  purchase  a  tax  title  without 


common  property  for  his  exclusive  benefit 
after  permitting  it  to  be  sold  for  taxes,  is 
fraud  on  the  part  of  such  purchaser. 

Iowa. — ^Van  Ormer  v.  Harley,  102  Iowa 
150,  71  N.  W.  241. 

Michigan. —  Dubois  v.  Campau,  24  Mich. 
360. 

Minnesota. —  Holterhoff  v.  Mead,  36  Minn. 
42,  29  N.  W.  675,  holding  that  one  of  two 
cotenants  of  lands  sold  at  foreclosure  sale, 
having  acquired  a  legal  title  thereto  on  an 
undertaking  with  his  cotenant  that  it  should 
be  held  for  the  common  benefit,  cannot  divest 
the  latter  of  his  equity  in  the  lands  by  a  tax 
title,  acquired  at  his  own  request  through  a 
third  person  with  money  furnished  by  him- 
self. 

Mississippi. —  Cohea  t .  Hemingway,  7 1 
Miss.  22,  14  So.  734,  42  Am.  St.  Rep.  449; 
Hardy  v.  Gregg,    (1887)    2  So.  358. 

Texas. — Branch  v.  Makeig,  9  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
399,  28  S.  W.  1050. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  60  et  seq. 

Vendue  title  does  not  revive  tenancy  in 
common  that  had  been  previously  severed  in 
fact.  Willard  v.  Strong,  14  Vt.  532,  39  Am. 
Dec.  240. 

Where  a  statute  declares  that  a  tax  title 
can  only  be  attacked  for  actual  fraud,  a 
tenant  in  common  in  possession  with  his  fel- 
lows may  purchase  such  title  and  hold  it,  at 
law,  as  against  them.  Mills  v.  Tukey,  22 
Cal.  373,  83  Am.  Dee.  74. 

99.  Phipps  V.  Phipps,  47  Kan.  328,  27 
Pac.  972;  Delashmutt  v.  Parrent,  39  Kan. 
548,  18  Pac.  712;  Dubois  v.  Campau,  24 
Mich.  360. 

1.  Hoyt  V.  Lightbody,  98  Minn.  189,  108 
N.  W.  843,  116  Am.  St.  Rep.  358. 

Even  where  there  is  a  statute,  which  if 
literally  construed  might  be  taken  to  avoid 
this  rule,  such  statute  is  usually  liberally 
construed  in  favor  of  the  non-redeeming  co- 
tenants,  and  the  rule  upheld.  Alexander  v. 
Light,  112  La.  925,  36  So.  806;  Hoyt  v. 
Lightbody,  98  Minn.  189,  108  N.  W.  843,  116 
Am.  St.  Rep.  358;  Easton  v.  Scofield,  66 
Minn.  425,  69  N.  W.  326;  Smith  r.  Smith, 
150  N.  C.  81,  63  S.  E.  177;  Clark  v.  Lindsay, 
47  Ohio  St.  437,  25  N.  E.  422,  9  L.  R.  A.  740; 
Barrett  v.  McCarty,  20  S.  D.  75,  104  N.  W. 
907.  Such  statutes,  however,  have  not  always 
been   so   liberally   construed   in  favor   of  co- 

[m,  D,  2,  a] 


tenants  as  where  the  statute  declares  that 
deeds  for  taxes  can  be  attacked  only  for 
actual  fraud,  and  it  has  been  held  that 
under  statutes  declaring  a  tax  deed  duly 
executed  prima  facie  evidence  of  all  facts 
stated  therein,  or  giving  conclusive  eflFect  to 
tax  deeds,  the  statute  must  prevail  at  law, 
although  in  equity  the  purchase  might  be  re- 
garded as  a  trust.     Johns  v.  Johns,  93  Ala. 

239,  9  So.  419;  Mills  v.  Tukey,  22  Cal.  373, 
83  Am.  Dec.  74. 

2.  West  Chicago  Park  Com'rs  t".  Coleman, 
108  111.  591;  Chickering  v.  Faile,  38  lU.  342; 
Davis  V.  King,  87  Pa.  St.  261. 

Mere  lapse  of  time  does  not  vary  the  rule. 
White  V.  Beckwith,  62  Conn.  79,  25  Atl.  400. 

The  one  in  possession  should  pay  the  taxes. 
Cole  V.  Cole,  57  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  490,  108  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  124.  Compare  Oglesby  v.  Hollister, 
76  Cal.  136,  18  Pac.  146,  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  177. 

A  tenant  in  common  for  life  is  bound  to 
pay  according  to  the  proportion  of  his  in- 
terest in  the  life-tenancy.  Anderson  v. 
Greble,  1  Ashm.   (Pa.)   136. 

3.  Ronkendorflf  v.  Taylor,  4  Pet.  (U.  S.) 
349,  7  L.  ed.  882. 

4.  Bender  v.  Stewart,  75  Ind.  88;  Minter 
v.  Durham,  13  Oreg.  470,  11  Pac.  231;  Davis 
V.   Chapman,  24   Fed.   674. 

5.  Howe  V.  Howe,  90  Iowa  582,  58  N.  W. 
908;  Davis  v.  Cass,  72  Miss.  985,  18  So.  454; 
Willard  v.  Strong,   14  Vt.  532,  39  Am.  Dee. 

240.  See  also  Stoll  v.  Griffith,  41  Wash.  37, 
82  Pac.  1025. 

Tax  title  before  creation  of  cotenancy. — 
Where  a  presumption  of  death  arose  and 
some  of  the  heirs  of  the  supposed  deceased 
asserted  a  title  against  their  coheirs  in  pos- 
session and  holding  under  a  tax  title  obtained 
before  the  arising  of  said  presumption,  it 
was  held  that  those  in  possession  will  be 
protected  therein.  Webster  v.  Webster,  55 
111.  325.  Where  a  purchaser  of  tax  title 
assigns  his  tax  certificate  to  one  who 
subsequent  to  such  assignment  becomes  a 
tenant  in  common,  such  assignee  is  not  barred 
from  claiming  the  benefit  of  such  assignment, 
except  as  he  may  be  estopped  from  taking 
title  thereunder  to  the  prejudice  of  his  co- 
tenants.  Flinn  v.  McKinley,  44  Iowa  68; 
Weare  v.  Van  Meter,  42  Iowa  128,  20  Am. 
Rep.  616.  Compare  Hoyt  v.  Lightbody,  98 
Minn.  189,  108  N.  W.  843,  116  Am.  St.  Rep. 
358. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc]     51 


its  inuring  to  the  benefit  of  his  alleged  cotenant."  Where  neither  an  alleged 
cotenant,  nor  any  one  in  privity  with  him,  questions  the  validity  of  the  tax  deed, 
the  deed  will  not  be  declared  void  merely  on  the  ground  of  tenancy  in  common.' 
It  is  not  necessary  that  a  tenant  in  common,  seeking  to  avail  himself  of  possession 
and  payment  of  taxes  by  his  cotenant  should  show,  to  establish  the  fact  of  his 
cotenancy,  that  the  conveyance  under  which  said  cotenants  claim  passed  an 
absolute  title.' 

b.  Contribution;  Lien.  Each  cotenant  being,  in  the  absence  of  statute  or 
agreement,  equally  bound  to  keep  the  taxes  paid,  one  paying  all  is  entitled  to 
reimbursement  with  interest  according  to  the  respective  proportionate  shares 
of  the  cotenants,"  and  one  tenant  in  common  who  redeems  the  property  from 
taxes  or  purchases  a  tax  title  has  a  claim  against  his  coowners  for  contribution 
according  to  their  respective  shares,^"  even  though  the  land  was  not  listed  for 


6.  Willcuts  V.  Rollins,  85  Iowa  247,  52 
N.  W.  199.  See  also  Alexander  v.  Sully,  50 
Iowa  192. 

7.  Burgett  f.  Williford,  56  Ark.  187,  19 
S.  W.  750,  35  Am.  St.  Rep.  96;  Boynton  f. 
Veldman,  131  Mich.  555,  91  N.  W.  1022; 
Miller  v.  Donahue,  96  Wis.  498,  71  N.  W. 
900. 

8.  West  Chicago  Park  Com'rs  v.  Coleman, 
108  111.  591. 

9.  Arkansas. —  Haines  v.  McGlone,  44 
Ark.  79. 

Illinois. —  Cheney  4\  Ricks,  187  111.  171,  58 
N.  E.  234;  Morgan  v.  Herrick,  21  111. 
481 ;  Glos  V.  Clark,  97  111.  App.  609  [reversed 
on  other  grounds  in  199  111.  147,  65  N.  E. 
135]. 

Indiana. —  Schissel  i".  Dickson,  129  Ind. 
139,  28  N.  E.  540;  Eads  v.  Retherford,  114 
Ind.  273,  16  N.  E.  587,  5  Am.  St.  Rep.  611. 
Iowa. — Hipp  V.  Crenshaw,  (1883)  17  N.  W. 
660;  Flinn  v.  McKinley,  44  Iowa  68;  Oliver 
t.  Montgomery,  39  Iowa  601. 

Kentucky. —  Montgomery  v.  Montgomery, 
119  Ky.  761,  78  S.  W.  465,  80  S.  W.  1108, 
25  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1682. 

Massachusetts. —  Dewing  v.  Dewing,  165 
Mass.  230,  42  N.  E.  1128;  Hurley  t.  Hurley, 
148  Mass.  444,  19  N.  E.  545,  2  L.  R.  A.  172; 
Kites  V.  Church,  142  Mass.  586,  8  N.  E.  743. 
Minnesota. —  Hoyt  f.  Lightbody,  98  Minn. 
189,  108  N.  W.  843,  116  Am.  St.  Rep.  358; 
Van  Brunt  f.  Gordon,  53  Minn.  227,  54  N.  W. 
1118. 

Missouri. —  Bates  v.  Hamilton,  144  Mo.  1, 
45  S.  W.  641,  66  Am.  St.  Rep.  407;  Stephens 
V.  Ells,  65  Mo.  456. 

New  York. — Arthur  v.  Arthur,  76  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  330,  78  N.  Y.  Suppl.  486;  Cole  v. 
Cole,  57  Misc.  490,  108  N.  Y.  Suppl.  124; 
McAlear  t.  Delaney,  19  N.  Y.  Wkly.  Dig. 
252. 

Pennsylvania. —  Devlin's  Estate,  5  Pa. 
Dist.  125,  17  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  433,  12  Montg.  Co. 
L.  Rep.  126. 

Virginia. —  Lagorio  v.  Dozier,  91  Va.  4S2, 
22  S.  E.  239,  holding  that  such  payment 
being  but  the  performance  of  a  duty,  no 
ouster  can  be  inferred  therefrom.  But  see 
Downey  v.  Strouse,  101  Va.  226,  43  S.  E. 
348. 

United  States. —  McClintock  v.  Fontaine, 
119  Fed.  448. 


Contribution  to  remainder-men. — A  tenant 
in  common  of  an  estate  in  expectancy  has  no 
right  to  demand  contribution  of  his  coten- 
ants therein  for  discharging  a  lien  on  the 
estate  in  the  hands  of  a  life-tenant  except 
where  such  discharge  is  necessary  to  prevent 
a  destruction  of  the  expectancy,  and  if  such 
payment  is  so  necessary  then  the  fact  that 
the  paying  remainder-men  reside  with  the 
life-tenant  is  immaterial.  Harrison  v.  Har- 
rison, 56  Miss.  174;  Zapp  f.  Miller,  109 
N.  Y.  51,  15  N.  E.  889. 

A  tenant  in  common  who  has  paid  the  en- 
tire purchase-price  and  is  in  possession,  col- 
lecting the  rents  and  profits  and  not  ac- 
counting therefor,  is  not  bound  to  pay  the 
taxes  assessed  to  his  cotenant.  Oglesby  v. 
Hollister,  76  Cal.  136,  18  Pac.  146,  9  Am. 
St.  Rep.  177. 

10.  Alaiama. —  Donnor  v.  Quartermas,  90 
Ala.  164,  8  So.  715,  24  Am.  St.  Rep.  778. 

Arkansas. — Cocks  v.  Simmons,  55  Ark.  104, 
17  S.  W.  594,  29  Am.  St.  Rep.  28. 

District  of  Columbia. — ^Alexander  v.  Doug- 
lass, 6  D.  C.  247. 

Florida.— yHiWia.ras  v.  Clyatt,  53  Fla.  987, 
43  So.  441. 

Illinois. —  Burgett  v.  Taliaferro,  118  111. 
503,  9  N.  E.  334. 

Indiana. — Schissel  v.  Dickson,  129  Ind.  139, 
28  N.  E.  540;  Eads  V.  Retherford,  114  Ind. 
273,  16  N.  E.  587,  5  Am.  St.  Rep.  611;  Hat- 
field V.  Mahoney,  39  Ind.  App.  499,  79  N.  E. 
408,  1086. 

loicu. —  Phillips  V.  Wilmarth,  98  Iowa  32, 
66  N.  W.  1053;  Austin  v.  Barrett,  44  Iowa 
488;  Flinn  v.  McKinley,  44  Iowa  68;  Oliver 
V.  Montgomery,  39  Iowa  601. 

Kentucky. —  Montgomery  v.  Montgomery, 
119  Ky.  761,  78  S.  W.  465,  80  S.  W.  1108,  25 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  1682. 

Louisiana. — ^Hake  v.  Lee,  106  La.  482,  31 
So.  54. 

Maine. — Williams  t.  Gray,  3  Me.  20Y,  14 
Am.  Dec.  234. 

Massachusetts. —  Hurley  f.  Hurley,  148 
Mass.  444,  19  N.  E.  545,  2  L.  R.  A.  172. 

Mississippi. — Davidson  v.  Wallace,  53  Miss. 
475. 

New  Jersey. —  Roll  v.  Everett,  73  N.  J. 
Eq.  697,  71  Atl.  263. 

OAio.— Clark  v.  Lindsey,  47  Ohio  St.  437, 
25  N.  E.  422,  9  L.  R.  A.  740. 

[Ill,  D,  2,  b] 


52     [38  CycJ 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


assessment  according  to  technical  accuracy;"  but  if  an  assessment  be  void,  the 
payment  thereof  by  one  tenant  in  common  creates  no  liability  on  the  part  of 
the  non-paying  cotenants.'^  The  cotenant  paying  a  valid  tax  claim  is  entitled  to 
hold  the  common  property  till  the  cotenants  pay  their  proportionate  part  of  such 
expenditures,"  being  entitled  to  a  lien  upon  the  property  untU  full  contribution," 
which  should  include  not  merely  the  amount  necessary  to  redeem  from  the  tax, 
but  all  proper  expenses  growing  out  of  the  proceeding.'^  The  right  does  not 
attach  to  the  refund  of  a  tax  assessment  paid  on  the  joint  property  during  the 
partnership  of  the  cotenants  therein;'"  and  the  right  to  contribution  or  reim- 
bursement cannot  be  enforced  when  such  claim  would  be  inconsistent  with  a 
former  act  of  the  claimant  of  such  a  character  as  under  the  circumstances  ought 
to  prevent  or  estop  him  from  claiming  said  right; "  or  as  against  a  purchaser 
without  notice  of  the  right  to  make  such  a  claim,  nor  can  such  a  claim  be  made 
a  charge  upon  the  land; ''  and  where  a  cotenant  having  purchased  the  common 


Tennessee. — Gass  v.  Waterhouse,  (Ch.  App. 
1900)   61  S.  W.  4S0. 

Vermont. — Wilmot  v.  Hurlburt,  67  Vt.  671, 
32  Atl.  861. 

Wisconsin. — Allen  v.  Allen,  114  Wis.  615, 
91  N.  W.  218. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  60. 

Such  claim  may  be  enforced  in  equity. 
Fritz  r.  Eamspott,  76  Minn.  489,  79  N.  W. 
520;  Richards  v.  Richards,  31  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
509.  Therefore,  where  a  tenant  in  common 
seeks  to  have  a  tax  deed  for  the  common 
property  to  a  cotenant  set  aside  as  a  cloud 
on  the  title,  he  is  compelled  to  tender  to  his 
cotenant  holding  said  deed  the  amount  paid 
for  him  in  redemption  of  the  land,  together 
with  taxes  subsequently  paid  thereon  with 
interest.  Koboliska  v.  Swehla,  107  Iowa  124, 
77  N.  W.  576;  Farmers'  Nat.  Bank  r.  Robin- 
son, (Kan.  1898)  53  Pac.  762;  Morris  ■;;. 
Roseberry,  46  W.  Va.  24,  32  S.  E.  1019.  The 
tender  need  not  be  more  than  the  share  due 
from  Mm  so  tendering.  Winter  v.  Atkinson, 
28  La.  Ann.  650. 

Writ  of  entry. —  Until  the  tender  of  his 
share  of  taxes  by  a  cotenant  he  cannot  main- 
tain a  writ  of  entry  against  the  cotenant  so 
paying  the  taxes.  Watkins  v.  Eaton,  30  Me. 
529,  50  Am.  Dec.  637. 

Limitations  will  not  run  against  the  coten- 
ants until  refusal  to  contribute.  Phillips  v. 
Wilmarth,  98  Iowa  32,  66  N.  W.  1053. 

The  lien  may  be  enforced  against  a  grantee 
of  a  cotenant  who  takes  title  by  a  quitclaim 
deed.  Young  v.  Bigger,  73  Kan.  146,  84 
Pac.  747. 

11.  Eads  i\  Retherford,  114  Ind.  273,  16 
N.  E.  587,  5  Am.  St.  Rep.  611. 

12.  Eads  V.  Retherford,  114  Ind.  273,  16 
N.  E.  587,  5  Am.  St.  Rep.  611;  Cole  t.  Cole, 
57  Misc.   (N.  Y.)   490,  108  N.  Y.  Suppl.  124. 

13.  Hurley  v.  Hurley,  148  Mass.  444,  19 
N.  E.  545,  2  L.  R.  A.  172;  Wilmot  v.  Lathrop, 
67  Vt.  671,  32  Atl.  861. 

14.  Arkansas. — -Moore  v.  Woodall,  40  Ark. 
42. 

Illinois. —  Wilton  f.  Tazwell,  86  111.  29; 
Phelps  V.  Reeder,  39  111.  172. 

Indiana. —  Ryason  v.  Dunten,  164  Ind.  85, 
73  N.  E.  74. 

loim. —  Hipp     V.     Crenshaw,     (1883)      17 

[III.  D,  2,  b] 


N".  W.  660;  Stover  v.  Cory,  53  Iowa  708,  6 
N.  W.  64;  Oliver  v.  Montgomery,  42  Iowa  36. 

Massachusetts. —  Hurley  i".  Hurley,  148 
Mass.  444,  19  N.  E.  545,  2  L.  R.  A.  172. 

New  Jersey. —  Roll  v.  Everett,  73  X.  J.  Eq. 
697,  71  Atl.  263;  Thiele  v.  Thiele,  57  N.  J. 
Eq.  98,  40  Atl.  446. 

OAio.— Clark  v.  Lindsey,  47  Ohio  St.  437, 
25  N.  E.  422,  9  L.  R.  A.  740. 

Tennessee. —  Tisdale  r.  Tisdale,  2  Sneed 
596,  64  Am.  Dec.  775. 

Texas. —  Branch  v.  Makeig,  9  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  399,  28  S.  W.  1050. 

Washington. —  Stone  c.  Marshall,  52  Wash. 
375,  100  Pac.  858. 

Wisconsin. —  Saladin  l.  Kraayvanger,  96 
Wis.  180,  70  2Sr.  W.  1113. 

United  States. —  McClintock  v.  Fontaine, 
119  Fed.  448. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon,"  §   61. 

Payment  of  taxes  as  sole  owner. —  Pay- 
ment of  taxes  in  the  capacity  of  sole  owner 
by  one  believing  himself  to  be  such  owner 
does  not  entitle  him  to  a  lien.  Van  Ormer  v. 
Harley,  102  Iowa  150,  71  N.  W.  241;  O'Hara 
V.  Quinn,  20  R.  I.   176,  38  Atl.  7. 

15.  Alexander  v.  Douglass,  6  D.  C.  247; 
Fallon  f.  Chidester,  46  Iowa  588,  26  Am.  Rep 
164;  Clark  v.  Lindsev,  47  Ohio  St.  437,  25 
N.  E.  422,  9  L.  R.  A.  740;  Allen  i:  Allen,  114 
Wis.  615,  91  N.  W.  218. 

16.  Clark  v.  Piatt,  39  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  670, 
58  N.  Y.  Suppl.  361;  Council  r.  Welch,  101 
Wis.  8,  76  N.  W.  596. 

17.  Van  Ormer  r.  Harley,  102  Iowa  150, 
71  N.  W.  241;  Wistar's  Appeal,  125  Pa.  St. 
526,  17  Atl.  460,  U  Am.  St.  Rep.  917;  O'Hara 
V.  Quinn,  20  R.  I.  176,  38  Atl.  7. 

Where  persons,  claiming  adversely,  paid 
taxes  they  cannot  seek  reimbursement  from 
their  cotenants  after  their  cotenants'  right 
has  been  established  in  ejectment,  as  the  pay- 
ment will  be  presumed  to  have  been  made  in 
the  right  of  said  adverse  claimants  and  for 
their  own  benefit.  Wistar's  Appeal,  125 
Pa.  St.  526,  17  Atl.  460,  11  Am.  St.  Rep.  917. 

18.  Stover  v.  Cory,  53  Iowa  708,  6  N.  W. 
64.  Compare  Oliver  v.  Montgomery,  42  Iowa 
36. 

Such  equities  are  inferior  to  that  of  a 
bona  fide   mortgagee  after   the   purchase  of 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc]     53 


property  under  a  decree  of  partition  and  subsequently  paid  taxes  constituting 
a  lien  thereon,  it  is  held  that  such  payment  having  been  made  by  him  in  the 
character  of  purchaser  and  not  of  cotenant,  he  is  not  entitled  to  contribution." 
The  claim  for  contribution  may  be  pleaded  as  a  set-off  in  an  action  between  the 
cotenants.^" 

3.  Purchasing  Cotenant's  Interest.  Although  a  tenant  in  common  may  not 
buy  an  outstanding  paramount  title  so  as  to  oust  his  cotenant,  yet  there  is  no 
reason  why  he  may  not  buy  in  the  independent  interest  of  another  tenant  in 
common,^*  and  a  purchase  by  one  cotenant  of  the  interest  of  another  does  not 
inure  to  the  benefit  of  all  the  remaining  tenants  in  common.^^  The  tenant  of  a 
tenant  in  common  is  not  estopped  from  purchasing  the  titles  of  the  other 
cotenants.^' 

E.  Repairs,  Improvements,  and  Expenses  For  Care  and  Manage- 
ment of  Property  —  l.  Duty  and  Right  to  Repair.  Tenants  in  common  are 
not  as  such  agents  for  each  other,  nor  are  they  bound  to  protect  each  other's 
interests  and  to  prevent  them  from  deteriorating  in  value;  the  duty  to  repair  is 
equal;  ^*  and  where  a  cotenant  improves  the  common  property  at  his  own  expense, 
thereby  putting  it  to  its  only  beneficial  use,  he  is  not  liable  to  his  cotenant  for 
trespass.^^  If  there  be  authority,  by  agreement  or  otherwise,  to  improve  the 
property  at  the  expense  of  the  cotenants  therein,  then  the  cotenant  so  improving 
will  be  entitled  to  contribution  from  his  cotenants  if  he  act  prudently  and  in  good 
faith;  and  under  such  circumstances  the  cotenant  so  improving  will  not  be  held 
responsible  to  the  others  for  mere  errors  of  judgment  either  as  to  the  character 
of  the  improvement  or  the  construction  thereof.^* 

2.  Contribution  For  Expenses  ;  Services  —  a.  Rule  Stated.  Tenants  in 
common  are  not  ordinarily  entitled  to  charge  each  other  for  services  rendered  in 
the  care  and  management  of  the  common  property,  in  the  absence  of  statute  or 
special  agreement  to  the  contrary,  or  of  such  facts  as  evidence  a  mutual  under- 


the  whole  property  at  a.  tax-sale  by  one  ten- 
ant in  common.  Atkinson  r.  Hewett,  63  Wis. 
396,  23  N.  W.  889. 

19.  Stephens  v.  Ells,  65  Mo.  456. 

20.  Fritz  V.  Eamspott,  76  Minn.  489,  79 
N.  W.  520;  Kean  f.  Connelly,  25  Minn.  222, 
23  Am.  Eep.  458;  Starks  v.  Kirsehgraber, 
134  Mo.  App.  211,  113  S.  W.  1149;  Schneider 
Granite  Co.  v.  Taylor,  64  Mo.  App.  37. 

21.  Snell  V.  Harrison,  104  Mo.  158,  16 
S.  W.  152;  Woodlief  v.  Woodlief,  136  N.  C. 
133,  48  S.  E.  583. 

22.  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Bissell,  4  Fed.  694, 
2  McCrary  73  laffirmed  in  114  U.  S.  252,  5 
S.  Ct.  851,  29  L.  ed.  126]. 

Buying  at  public  sale. —  The  doctrine  that 
»  purchase  cf  an  outstanding  title  by  one 
joint  tenant  will  be  held  to  be  for  the  benefit 
of  his  cotenants,  and  not  adverse  to  them, 
has  no  application  to  a  case  where  the  tenant 
buys  the  interests  of  his  cotenants  at  a  public 
sale,  and  thereby  obtains  or  attempts  and 
claims  to  obtain  their  title.  Peck  v.  Lock- 
ridge,  97  Mo.  549,  11  S.  W.  246.  Com/pwre 
Quaekenbush  v.  Leonard,  9  Paige  (N.  Y.) 
334. 

23.  Catlin  -c.  Kidder,  7  Vt.   12. 

24.  Wolfe  V.  Childs,  42  Colo.  121,  94  Pac. 
292,  126  Am.  St.  Rep.  152;  Adams  v.  Man- 
ning, 51  Conn.  5;  Taylor  v.  Baldwin,  10  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  582  [affirmed  in  10  Barb.  626];  Moss 
V.  Rose,  27  Oreg.  595,  41  Pac.  666,  50  Am.  St. 
Rep.  743. 

The   tenant  in  possession  should  pay  for 


ordinary    repairs.      Cole    v.    Cole,    57    Misc. 
(N.  Y.)  490,  108  N.  Y.  Suppl.  124. 

Statutory  power  in  selectmen  for  the  mak- 
ing of  repairs  to  mills,  mill-dams,  or  flumes 
owned  by  cotenancy  when  the  privilege  of  the 
water  is  so  owned,  and  to  charge  the  repairs 
in  proportion  to  the  respective  interests  of 
the  cotenants,  must  be  strictly  exercised,  and 
does  not  empower  the  selectmen  either  to 
make  such  repairs  or  assessments  other  than 
by  statute  provided,  or  as  against  any  one 
not  especially  in  such  statute  designated. 
Roberts  v.  Peavey,  27  N.  H.  477. 

25.  Johnson  v.  Conant,  64  N.  H.  109,  7 
Atl.  116. 

26.  Nelson  v.  Clay,  7  J.  J.  Marsh.  (Kj^.) 
138,  23  Am.  Dec.  387;  Holt  v.  Couch,  125 
N.  C.  456,  34  S.  E.  703,  74  Am.  St.  Rep. 
648 ;  Reed  v.  Jones,  8  Wis.  421. 

The  care  required  to  be  exercised  in  rela- 
tion to  tne  common  property,  if  movable,  is 
analogous  to  that  of  a  bailee  without  hire; 
that  is,  ordinary  care;  it  is  not  enough  to 
show  that  the  one  in  possession  used  the 
same  care  as  he  did  in  regard  to  his  separate 
property,  as  there  is  no  evidence  as  to 
whether  or  not  such  care  amounted  to  ordi- 
nary care.  Guillot  v.  Dossat,  4  Mart.  (La.) 
203,  6  Am.  Dee.  702. 

A  declaration  to  a  disinterested  person  by 
the  tenant  in  common  operating  the  common 
property  that  he  is  doing  so  entirely  at  his 
own  expense  is  not  sutiicient  to  prove  a  con- 
tract on  his  part  not  to  make  any  demand 

[III,  E.  2,  a] 


54    [38  Cyc] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


standing  that  such  payment  shall  be  made."  But  one  cotenant  by  agreement, 
express  or  implied,  with  the  other  may  become  entitled  to  contribution  for  services 
rendered  or  expenditures  made  in  the  management  and  care  of  the  common 
property,^'  and  a  tenant  in  common  is  held  to  be  entitled  to  contribution  for 
expenditures  absolutely  necessary  for  the  benefit  and  preservation  of  the  common 


for  such  expenditures  against  his  cotenants. 
Danforth  v.  Moore,  55  N.  J.  Eq.  127,  35  Atl. 
410. 

27.  Arkansas. —  Dunavant  f.  Fields,  68 
Ark.  534,  60  S.  W.  420,  holding  that  a  dev- 
isee was  entitled  to  reimbursement  for  act- 
ual expenses  in  making  improvements,  but 
not  for  his  services  in  so  doing  in  the  ab- 
sence of  an  agreement  therefor. 

Florida. — Anderson  f.  Northrop,  44  Fla. 
472,  33  So.  419;  Fuller  v.  Fuller,  23  Fla.  236, 
2  So.  426. 

Maryland. —  Hamilton  v.  Conine,  28  Md. 
635,  92  Am.  Dec.  724. 

Michigan. —  Gay  v.  Berkey,  137  Mich.  658, 
100  N.  W.  920. 

New  Jersey. —  Switzer  v.  Switzer,  57  N.  J. 
Eq.  421,  41  Atl.  486;  Hattersiey  v.  Bissett, 
52  N.  J.  Eq.  693,  30  Atl.  86. 

New  York. —  Barry  v.  Colville,  129  N.  Y. 
302,  29  N.  E.  307  [affirming  13  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
4];  Central  Trust  Go.  v.  New  York  Equip- 
ment Co.,  87  Hun  421,  34  N.  Y.  Suppl.  349; 
Cole  V.  Cole,  57  Misc.  490,  108  X.  Y.  Suppl. 
124;  Franklin  t.  Robinson,  1  Johns.  Ch.  157. 

Pennsylvania. —  Croasdale  v.  Von  Boyne- 
burgk,  206  Pa.  St.  15,  55  Atl.  770;  Thomp- 
son V.  Newton,  8  Pa.  Cas.  118,  7  Atl.  64,  oil 
wells. 

Vermont. —  Redfield  v.  Gleason,  61  Vt.  220, 
17  Atl.  1075,  15  Am.  St.  Rep.  889. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  93. 

28.  Alabama. — 'Russell  v.  Russell,  62  Ala. 
48;  Strother  v.  Butler,  17  Ala.  733. 

California. —  Thompson  r.  Salmon,  18  Cal. 
632. 

Illinois.— Mi^  v.  White,  36  111.  484;  Haven 
V.  Mehlgarten,  19  111.  91,  holding  that  absent 
cotenants  of  a  ferry  privilege,  which  required 
the  owners  to  construct  and  maintain  the 
ferry  in  proper  repair  for  public  use,  having 
knowledge  of  repairs  made  thereon  and  no 
demand  having  been  made  upon  them  for 
payment  therefor,  are  liable  to  contribute 
toward  such  repairs  made  by  their  cotenants. 

loica. —  Sears  v.  Munson,  23  Iowa  380. 

Louisiana. — -Percy  v.  Millaudon,  6  Mart. 
N.  S.  616,  17  Am.  Dec.  196. 

juatrae.^- Jordan  v.  Soule,  79  Me.  590,  12 
Atl.  786. 

Maryland. —  Eanstead  v.  Eanstead,  74  Md. 
378,  22  Atl.  405. 

Massachusetts. —  Carroll  i.  Carroll,  188 
Mass.  558,  74  N.  E.  913;  Wheeler  v.  Wheeler, 
111  Mass.  247  (an  agreement  by  heirs  to  live 
together  on  the  estate,  and  pay  the  debts, 
taxes,  and  expenses  of  the  common  living)  ; 
Field  V.  Craig,  8  Allen  357;  Dodge  v.  Wilkin- 
son, 3  Mete.  292;  Gardner  r.  Cleveland,  9 
Pick.  334;  Gwinneth  v.  Thompson,  9  Pick. 
31,  19  Am.  Dec.  350;  Converse  v.  Ferre,  11 
Mass.  325. 

Michigan. —  Gay  v.  Berkey,  137  Mich.  658, 

[III,  E,  2,  a] 


100  N.   W.   920;   Boyce  v.  Boyce,   124  Mich. 
696,  83  N.  W.  1013. 

Minnesota. —  Oliver  v.  Hedderly,  32  Minn. 
455,  21  N.  W.  478. 

New  York. —  Matter  of  Robinson,  40  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  23,  57  N.  Y.  Suppl.  502 ;  Gedney  v. 
Gedney,  19  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  407,  46  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  590  [affirmed  in  160  N.  Y.  471,  55 
N.  E.  1];  Moore  i-.  Erie  R.  Co.,  7  Lans.  39; 
Grannis  v.  Cook,  3  Thomps.  &  C.  299;  Cole 
V.  Cole,  57  Misc.  490,  108  N.  Y.  Suppl.  124. 

Tennessee. —  Gass  v.  Waterhouse,  (Ch. 
App.   1900)    61  S.  W.  450. 

Vermont. —  Redfield  v.  Gleason,  61  Vt.  220, 
17  Atl.  1075,  15  Am.  St.  Rep.  889;  Fisher  v. 
Kinaston,  18  Vt.  489;  Kidder  v.  Rixford,  16 
Vt.  169,  42  Am.  Dec.  504. 

Wisconsin. —  Clark  v.  Plummer,  31  Wis. 
442. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," i§  93,  97. 

On  an  agreement  between  cotenants  that 
one  of  them  should  make  a  sale  of  the  com- 
mon property  and  receive  a  commission,  it 
was  held  that  he  was  entitled  to  the  commis- 
sion upon  his  being  the  procuring  cause  of 
the  sale.     McCreery  v.  Green,  38  Mich.  172. 

Such  an  agreement  is  usually  liberally  con- 
strued (Gould  V.  Hayne,  54  Fed.  951.  See 
also  Beezley  r.  Crossen,  14  Oreg.  473,  13  Pac. 
306)  in  the  light  of  the  relationship  ex- 
isting between  them.  Thus,  an  agreement 
between  tenants  in  common  to  work  the  land 
for  one  third  of  the  proceeds  will  be  construed 
to  be  an  agreement  of  hire  and  not  of  lease. 
Moreland  v.  Strong,  115  Mich.  211,  73  N.  W. 
140,  69  Am.  St.  Rep.  553.  An  agreement  by 
two  tenants  in  common  to  share  the  ex- 
pense of  fencing  includes  expenses  of  a 
survey  necessary  to  determine  the  boundary 
of  the  land.  Gould  v.  Hayne,  supra.  But 
there  is  no  recovery  for  the  expense  of  in- 
creasing the  size  of  a  flume  without  a  contract 
therefor.  Middlebury  Electric  Co.  v.  Tupper, 
70  Vt.  603,  41  Atl.  582. 

Interest. — Where  there  is  an  agreement 
that  from  the  proceeds  of  a  sale  the  expendi- 
tures made  by  the  tenants  in  common, 
respectively,  on  the  property  shall  first  be 
paid  to  them  respectively,  as  debts,  such  ex- 
penditures will  not  bear  interesrt  from  the 
time  when  they  were  made  to  the  time  of 
such  agreement.  Danforth  v.  Moore,  55  N.  J. 
Eq.  127,  35  Atl.  410. 

Where  several  persons  purchase  an  estate 
to  be  held  in  common,  and  one  pays  the  pur- 
chase-money, the  one  so  paying  is  entitled  to 
sustain  a  bill  for  contribution  or  may  set  up 
such  claim  in  mitigation  of  damages.  Mix  i'. 
White,  36  111.  484;  Higham  t.  Harris,  108 
Ind.  246,  8  N.  E.  255;  Brown  f.  Budd,  2 
Ind.  442;  Burrell  v.  Bull,  3  Sandf.  Ch. 
(X.  Y.)  15;  Whitehead  r.  Jones,  197  Pa.  St. 
511,   47   Atl.   978.     But  such  right  does  not 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cye,]     55 


property,*"  and  the  right  is  even  extended  to  charge  the  cotenant  with  a  just 
proportion  of  the  reasonable  expenses  incurred  fairly  and  in  good  faith  for  the 


accrue  until  suit  for  partition,  until  which 
time  limitations  does  not  apply.  Grove  v. 
Grove,  100  Va.  556,  42  S.  E.  312;  Ballou  c. 
Ballou,  94  Va.  350,  26  S.  E.  840,  64  Am.  St. 
Rep.  733;  Tompkins  t;.  Mitchell,  2  Eand. 
(Va.)  428. 

A  claim  for  repairs  to  the  common  estate 
after  the  death  of  a  cotenant  cannot  be  prose- 
cuted against  the  decedent's  estate,  but  it 
may  be  prosecuted  against  the  decedent's 
heirs  or  personal  representatives.  Sears  i;. 
Munson,  23  Iowa  380;  De  Grange  %.  De 
Grange,  96  Md.  609,  54  Atl.  663. 

Set-off. — Where  a  judgment  is  obtained  un- 
der a  contract  for  payment  for  services  in 
relation  to  the  common  land,  out  of  the  sale 
thereof,  and  there  is  a  set-off  by  some  of  the 
cotenants  to  said  claim,  the  judgment  should 
provide  for  an  allowance  of  such  set-off.  Cot- 
ton 1-.  Eand,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1898)  51  S.  W. 
55;  Galveston,  etc.,  E.  Co.  r.  Stockton,  15 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  145,  38  S.  W.  647;  Vermont 
L.  &  T.  Co.  V.  Cardin,  19  Wash.  304,  53  Pac. 
164. 

Limitations. — A  claim  of  a  cotenant  for 
services,  under  an  express  contract  authoriz- 
ing him  to  deduct  a  certain  sum  in  the  fall 
of  each  year  from  the  rents  of  the  common 
property  for  his  services,  *ithout  right  to 
incur  any  debts  against  the  common  prop- 
erty, was  subject  to  limitations.  Rosamond 
V.  Eoaamond,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1909)  120 
S.  W.  520. 

29.  Arkansas. —  Dunavant  v.  Fields,  68 
Ark.  534,  60  S.  W.  420;  Bowman  v.  Pettit, 
68  Ark.  126,  56  S.  W.  780. 

Illimois. — -  Gardner  l".  Diederichs,  41  111. 
158;  Haven  v.  Mehlgarten,  19  111.  91;  Griffith 
f.  Robinson,  14  111.  App.  377. 

Iowa. —  Sullivan  t".  Brennan,  94  Iowa  743, 
63  N.  W.  678. 

Kentucky. —  Hotopp  v.  Morrison  Lodge  No. 
76,  110  Ky.  987,  63  S.  W.  44,  23  Ky.  L.  Eep. 
418;  Vermillion  v.  Nickell,  (1908)  114  S.  W. 
270. 

Louisiana. —  Percy  v.  Millaudon,  6  Mart. 
N.  S.  616,  17  Am.  Dec.  196. 

Maine. — Williams  v.  Coombs,  88  Me.  183, 
33  Atl.  1073. 

Massachusetts. —  Dodge  v.  Wilkinson,  3 
Mete.  292;  Gwinneth  f.  Thompson,  9  Pick. 
31,  19  Am.  Dec.  350. 

THew  York. —  Gedney  v.  Gedney,  19  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  407,  46  N.  Y.  Suppl.  590  [affirmed 
in  160  N.  Y.  471,  55  N.  E.  1];  Grannis  v. 
Cook,  3  Thomps.  &  C.  299.  See  also  Wood 
V.  Merritt,  2  Bosw.  368. 

Pennsylvania. —  Dech's  Appeal,  57  Pa.  St. 
467 ;  Devlin's  Estate,  5  Pa.  Dist.  125,  17  Pa. 
Co.  Ct.  433,  12  Montg.  Co.  Rep.  126. 

Philippine. — Trinidad  v.  Ricafort,  7  Philip- 
pine 449. 

Rhode  Island. —  Raftery  v.  Monahan,  22 
E.  I.  558,  48  Atl.  940. 

TeiBas.— Cotton  v.  Coit,  (Civ.  App.  1895) 
30  S.  W.  281  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in 
88  Tex.  414,  31  S.  W.  1061]. 

Vermont.—  Strong  v.  Hunt,  20  Vt.  614. 


Wisconsin. —  Stewart  V.  Stewart,  90  Wis. 
516,  63  N.  W.  886,  48  Am.  St.  Eep.  949; 
Clark  V.  Plummer,  31  Wis.  442. 

England.— In  re  Cook,  [1896]  1  Ch.  923; 
65  L.  J.  Ch.  654,  74  L.  T.  Eep.  N.  S.  652,  44 
Wkly.  Rep.  646. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  97. 

But  see  Stickley  r.  Mulrooney,  36  Colo. 
242,  87  Pac.  547,  holding  a  cotenant  not  en- 
titled to  contribution  out  of  a  fund  in  court 
paid  on  an  order  of  court  in  an  action  for 
an  accounting  for  expenditures  made  in  rela- 
tion to  the  common  property  after  such  pay- 
ment into  court. 

Where  costs  are  incurred  by  a  tenant  in 
common  in  a  necessary  and  proper  suit  for 
the  benefit  of  the  common  property  or  the 
owners  thereof  in  common  as  such,  he  is  en- 
titled to  contribution.  Bowman  v.  Pettit,  68 
Ark.  126,  56  S.  W.  780;  Estill  v.  Francis,  89 
S.  W.  172,  28  Ky.  L.  Rep.  225;  Gregg  v. 
Patterson,  9  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.)  197;  McClin- 
tock  V.  Fontaine,  119  Fed.  448;  Gage  v.  Mul- 
holland,  16  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  145.  This  rule 
has  been  held  to  apply  against  one  who  al- 
lowed his  cotenant  to  take  the  hazards  and 
labor  of  litigation  relating  to  the  property 
owned  in  common,  and  accepted  the  results 
of  such  litigation,  even  though  he  did  not 
want  the  suit  brought  or  prosecuted,  or  was 
inactive  pending  its  course.  Estill  v.  Fran- 
cis, 89  S.  W.  172,  28  Ky.  L.  Eep.  225. 

Defending  title. — ^A  tenant  in  common  in 
sole  possession  will  ordinarily  be  allowed  for 
necessary  counsel  fees  paid  in  defending  a 
suit  to  protect  the  property.  Hitchcock  v. 
Skinner,  Hoffm.  (N.  Y.)  21.  See  also 
Hume  V.  Howard,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1898)  48 
S.  W.  202.  And  it  has  been  held  that  where 
moneys  have  been  expended  in  defending  the 
title  and  improving  the  common  property 
under  an  agreement  between  the  cotenants 
to  pay  said  expenditures,  a  lien  attaches  to 
tne  common  property  in  favor  of  the  one  so 
making  said  expenditures.  Bowman  f.  Pettit, 
68  Ark.  126,  56  S.  W.  780.  But  attorneys 
employed  by  part  of  the  tenants  in  common 
of  an  estate,  to  protect  the  estate,  cannot  re- 
cover any  part  of  the  compensation  from  the 
others,  altnough  the  services  inure  to  the 
benefit  of  all.  Mayfield  v.  McKnight,  (Tenn. 
Ch.  App.  1899)  56  S.  W.  42.  A  presumption 
of  law  in  favor  of  consent  may,  however, 
arise.  Barton  v.  Gray,  48  Mich.  164,  12 
N.  W.  30;  Taylor  v.  Baldwin,  10  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)    582   [affirmed  in  10  Barb.  626]. 

Ky.  St.  (1903)  §  489,  allowing  costs,  fees, 
and  other  expenses  incurred  by  one  copar- 
cener or  joint  owner  does  not  apply  to  ex- 
penses incurred  in  defending  the  joint  title  in 
unsuccessful  suits  brought  by  third  persons. 
Francis  v.  Million,  80  S.  W.  486,  26  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  42. 

The  payment  of  taxes  as  ground  for  con- 
tribution see  supra.  III,  D,  2,  b. 

The  cotenant  is  not  entitled  to  contribu- 
tion as  a  matter  of  right,  but  purely  from  a 

[III,  E,  2,  a] 


56     [38  CycJ 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


benefit  of  the  common  property  or  such  as  were  from  necessity  dispensed  for  the 
common  estate,'"  even  though  the  conduct  of  the  paying  tenant  may  not  have 
been  strictly  equitable.'^  But  one  eotenant  in  common  is  ordinarily  not  respon- 
sible to  his  eotenant  for  the  cost  of  improvements  or  repairs  upon  the  common 
property  unless  he  so  agreed  or  ratified  the  act  of  making  them  or  unless  it 
is  shown  that  the  improvements  or  repairs  were  absolutely  necessary  to  the 
enjoyment  or  preservation  of  the  property.^^     Where  the  expenditures  do  not 

Philippine. — Trinidad  v.  Ricafort,  7  Philip- 
pine 449. 

Rhode  Island. —  Raftery  f.  Monahan,  22 
R.  I.  558,  48  Atl.  940. 

Texas. —  Broom  i:  Pearson,  (Civ.  App. 
1904)  81  S.  W.  753  [affirmed  in  98  Tex.  469, 
86  S.  W.  790,  86  S.  W.  733] ;  Cotton  v.  Coit, 
{Civ.  App.  1895)  30  S.  W.  281  [reversed 
on  other  grounds  in  88  Tex.  414,  31  S.  W. 
1061]. 

7ermo»it.— Kidder  v.  Rixford,  16  Vt.  169, 
42  Am.  Dec.  504. 

Canada. —  In  re  Curry,  25  Ont.  App.  267. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  97  et  seq. 

Where  a  suit  is  brought  by  third  parties 
because  of  damages  arising  out  of  hona  fide 
improvements  for  the  benefit  of  the  common 
property  each  eotenant  therein  must  con- 
tribute toward  the  amount  of  such  damage 
in  proportion  to  his  proprietary  interest  in 
the  common  property.  Dodge  v.  Wilkinson, 
3  Mete.   (Mass.)   292. 

Money  paid  to  an  agent  for  collection  of 
rents  is  allowable  as  a  credit.  Collins  ■!;.  Col- 
lins, 8  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  502,  40  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
902. 

31.  Russell  V.  Defrance,  39  Mo.  506;  Det- 
tering  i'.  Nordstrom,  148  Fed.  81,  78  C.  C.  A. 
157.  But  see  Conrad  v.  Starr,  50  Iowa  470, 
holding  that  where  money  had  been  raised 
by  ji  mortgage  for  the  purpose  of  improv- 
ing the  common  proper,ty  and  a  tenant  ex- 
pending the  money  misapplied  it,  he  could 
not  recover  from  his  cotenants  for  any  im- 
provements he  had  made. 

32.  Alahama. —  Merchants'  Bank  v.  Foster, 
124  Ala.  696,  27  So.  513. 

Colorado. —  Rico  Reduction,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Musgrave,  14  Colo.  79,  23  Pac.  458;  Neu- 
man  v.  Dreifurst,  9  Colo.  228,  11  Pac. 
98. 

Georgia. —  Bazemore  v.  Davis,  55  Ga.  504. 

Illinois. —  Chambers   r.  Jones,   72  111.  275. 

Indiana. — 'Harry  v.  Harry,  127  Ind.  91, 
26  N.  E.  562. 

Zoito.— Frye  v.  Gullion,  143  Iowa  719,  121 
N.  W.  563;  Cooper  f.  Brown,  143  Iowa  482 
122  N.  W.  144. 

Louisiana. —  Moreira  v.  Schwan,  113  La. 
643,  37  So.  542  (applying  rent  of  storehouse 
toward  expense  of  plaintiff  after  notice  to 
cease  such  application)  ;  Conrad  v.  Burbank, 
25  La.  Ann.  112;  Morgan  v.  Morgan,  23  La. 
Ann.  502 ;  Becnel  v.  Becnel,  23  La.  Ann.  150 ; 
Smith  V.  Wilson,  10  La.  Ann.  255. 

Maine. —  Reed  v.  Bachelder,  34  Me.  205. 

Massachusetts. —  Calvert  v.  Aldrich,  99 
Mass.  74,  96  Am.  Dec.  693 ;  Doane  v.  Badger, 
12  Mass.  65;  Converse  v.  Perre,  11  Mass. 
325 ;    Carver   v.  Miller,  4  Mass.   559. 


desire  of  the  court  to  do  justice  between  all 
the  parties.  Ballou  r.  Ballon,  94  Va.  350,  26 
S.  E.  840,  64  Am.  St.  Rep.  733. 

Non-payment  of  contribution  does  not  con- 
stitute abandonment,  since  contribution  is 
enforceable.  Gosseliu  v.  Smith,  154  111.  74, 
39  N.  E.  980. 

Tenants  in  common  having  warranted  the 
soundness  of  the  common  property  sold  by 
them,  one  of  them,  upon  the  property  proving 
defective,  paying  for  said  defect  without  suit 
is  entitled  to  contribution.  Davis  t'.  Bur- 
nett, 49  N.  C.  71,  67  Am.  Dec.  263. 

Woodland  or  arable  land. —  The  general 
rule  that  tenants  in  common  are  entitled  to 
contribution,  as  above  announced,  is  said  not 
to  apply  to  woodland  or  arable  land.  Beaty 
V.  Bordwell,  91  Pa.  St.  438;  Deeh's  Appeal, 
57  Pa.  St.  467 ;  Anderson  r.  Greble,  1  Ashm. 
136;  Ward  v.  Ward,  40  W.  Va.  611,  21  S.  E. 
746,  52  Am.  St.  Rep.  911,  29  L.  R.  A.  449. 

Ordinarily  the  husband  or  wife  of  the  co- 
tenant  having  so  expended  money  is  en- 
titled to  contribution.  Perkins  v.  Smith,  37 
S.  W.  72,  18  Ky.  L.  Rep.  509;  Chace  v.  Dur- 
fee,  16  R.  I.  248,  14  Atl.  919. 

Expenses  after  decease  or  before  cotenancy. 
—  There  can  be  no  claim  against  the  estate 
of  a  deceased  eotenant  for  repairs  or  im- 
provements made  on  the  common  property 
after  his  decease ;  such  a  claim,  if  any,  must 
be  made  against  his  successors  in  the  co- 
tenancy (De  Grange  c.  De  Grange,  96  Md. 
609,  54  Atl.  663),  nor  can  there  be  any  claim 
as  against  cotenants  for  expenditures  before 
the  commencement  in  fact  of  the  cotenancy 
(Pulse  V.  Osborn,  (Ind.  App.  1901)  60  N.  E. 
374;  Lasby  v.  Crewson,  21  Ont.  255),  and  so 
of  repairs  made  before  acquiring  title 
(Davis  V.  Sawyer,  66  N.  H.  34,  20  Atl. 
100). 

30.  California. — McCord  v.  Oakland  Quick- 
silver Min.  Co.,  64  Cal.  134,  27  Pac.  863, 
49  Am.  Rep.  686. 

Connecticut. —  Fowler  v.  Fowler,  50  Conn. 
256. 

Haioaii. —  Kanakamaikai  v.  Pahulio,  12 
Hawaii  1. 

Massachusetts. —  Gardner  v.  Cleveland,  9 
Pick.  334;  Gwinneth  v.  Thompson,  9  Pick. 
31,  19  Am.  Dec.  350. 

Michigan. —  Loomis  v.  O'Neal,  73  Mich. 
582,  41  N.  W.  701. 

Mississippi. —  Davidson  v.  Wallace,  53 
Miss.  475. 

New  Jersey. —  Lloyd  v.  Turner,  70  N.  J. 
Eq.  425,  62  Atl.  771. 

North  Carolina. —  Peyton  f.  Smith,  22 
N.  C.  325. 

Pennsylvania. — Anderson  v.  Greble,  1 
Ashm.  136. 

[Ill,  E,  2,  a] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cye.J     57 


inure  to  the  common  benefit  of  the  common  estate  there  is  no  contribution.'^ 
Where  a  tenant  in  common  may  recover  contribution  for  necessary  repairs,  it  is 


Michigan. —  Stackable  v.  Stackable,  65 
Mich.  515,  32  N.  W.  808. 

Minnesota. — Walter  v.  Greenwood,  29  Minn. 
87,  12  N..  W.  145. 

Mississippi. —  Bennett  v.  Bennett,  84  Miss. 
493,  36  So.  452. 

Missouri. —  Picot  f.  Page,  26  Mo.  398. 

Nevada. — Welland  v.  Williams,  21  Nev. 
230,  29  Pac.  403. 

New  Hampshire. — Wiggin  v.  Wiggin,  43 
X.  H.  561,  80  Am.  Dee.  192;  Stevens  v. 
Thompson,  17  N.  H.  103. 

New  York. —  Havey  v.  Kelleher,  36  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  201,  56  N.  Y.  Suppl.  889  (erecting 
buildings  as  a  private  business  venture  with- 
out consent  of  cotenanta,  and  insuring  the 
common  property  in  his  own  name)  ;  Myers 
f.  Bolton,  89  Hun  342,  35  N.  Y.  Suppl.  577; 
Coakley  v.  Mahar,  36  Hun  157;  Ford  f. 
Knapp,  31  Hun  522  [.reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  102  N.  Y.  135,  6  N.  E.  283,  55 
Am.  Eep.  782] ;  Scott  v.  Guernsey,  60  Barb. 
163  [affirmed  in  48  N.  Y.  106];  Taylor  v. 
Baldwin,  10  Barb.  582  [affirmed  in  10  Barb. 
626];  Cole  v.  Cole,  57  Misc.  490,  108  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  124;  Mumford  v.  Brown,  6  Cow.  475, 

16  Am.  Dec.  440. 

Oregon. —  Beezley  v.  Crossen,  14  Oreg.  473, 
13  Pae.  306. 

Pennsylvania. —  Dech's  Appeal,  57  Pa.  St. 
467;  Crest  v.  Jack,  3  Watts  238,  27  Am. 
Dec.  353;   Devlin's  Estate,  5   Pa.   Dist.   125, 

17  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  433,   12  Montg.  Co.  L.  Eep. 
126. 

Philippine. —  Javier  v.  Javier,  6  Philip- 
pine  493. 

South  Carolina. —  Thurston  v.  Dickinson,  2 
Rich.  Eq.  317,  46  Am.  Dee.  56;  Hancock  f. 
Day,  McMull.  Eq.  298;  Thompson  v.  Bostick, 
McMull.  Eq.  75. 

Vermont. —  Middlebury  Electric  Co.  v. 
Tupper,  70  Vt.  603,  41  Atl.  582. 

Virginia. — 'Ballou  v.  Ballou,  94  Va.  350, 
26  S.  E.  840,  64  Am.  St.  Eep.  733. 

Washington. —  Minder  i'.  Mottaz,  37  Wash. 
474,  79  Pac.  996. 

West  Virginia. — Ward  f.  Ward,  40'  W.  Va. 
611,  21  S.  E.  746,  52  Am.  St.  Eep.  911,  29 
L.  R.  A.  449. 

Wisconsin. —  Eeed  v.  Jones,  8  Wis.  421. 

England. —  Leigh  v.  Dickeson,  15  Q.  B.  D. 
60,  54  L.  J.  Q.  B.  18,  52  L.  T.  Eep.  N.  S. 
790,  33  Wkly.  Eep.  538;  Hill  v.  Hickin, 
[1897]  2  Ch.  579,  66  L.  J.  Ch.  717,  77  L.  T. 
Eep.  N.  S.  127,  46  Wkly.  Eep.  137;  In  re  Cook, 
[1896]  1  Ch.  923,  65  L.  J.  Ch.  654,  74  L.  T. 
Eep.  N.  S.  652,  44  Wkly.  Rep.  646;  In  re 
Jones,  [1893]  2  Ch.  461,  62  L.  J.  Ch.  996, 
■69  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  45,  3  Reports  498 ;  Heath 
17.  Bostock,  5  L.  J.  Exch.  20. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  97  et  seq.  And  see  cases  cited  infra, 
this  and  tlie  following  notes. 

Repairs  and  improvements  made  without 
the  cotenant's  consent,  and  before  he  ac- 
quired title,  cannot  be  made  the  basis  of  con- 
tribution. Davis  V.  Sawyer,  66  N.  H.  34, 
20  Atl.  lOO. 


Reimbursement  for  expenditures  for  im- 
mediate necessary  repairs  to  a  vessel  in  a 
foreign  port  see  Hill  v.  Crocker,  87  Me.  208, 
32  Atl.  878,  47  Am.  St.  Rep.  321.  Reim- 
bursement for  money  expended  for  repairs 
on  a  vessel  in  a  home  port  denied  see  Benson 
V.  Thompson,  27  Me.  470,  46  Am.  Dec.  617. 

Unless  the  amount  of  increase  in  income 
is  apparent  from  the  evidence  no  allowance 
can  be  made  for  such  expenditures.  Walter 
V.   Greenwood,   29   Minn.   87,    12  N.   W.   145. 

Where  a  cotenant  leases  his  moiety  to  an- 
other, the  tenant  under  the  lease  cannot,  in 
an  action  for  partition,  charge  his  landlord 
for  repairs'  made  during  the  tenancy  upon 
the  property,  in  the  absence  of  a  special 
agreement  for  compensation.  Schmidt  v. 
Constans,  82  Minn.  347,  85  N.  W.  173,  83 
Am.  St.  Rep.  437.  See  also  Grannis  v.  Cook, 
3  Thomps.  &  C.   (N.  Y.)   299. 

Tenants  in  common  cannot  erect  buildings 
on  the  joint  or  common  property,  and  charge 
the  other  cotenants  with  their  share  of  the 
expense,  although  they  knew  of  the  erecting 
and  did  not  object.  Crest  v.  Jack,  3  Watts 
(Pa.)  238,  27  Am.  Dec.  353;  Javier  v.  Javier, 
6  Philippine  493. 

An  insurance  premium,  in  the  absence  of 
a  showing  that  it  was  paid  for  the  common 
benefit,  cannot  be  the  basis  of  contribution. 
Farrand  v.  Gleason,  56  Vt.  S33.  A  coowner 
holding  the  common  property  adversely  and 
insuring  it  cannot  have  reimbursement. 
Gilroy  v.  Richards,  26  Tex.  Civ.  App.  355, 
63  S.  W.  664. 

Clearing  a  portion  of  the  common  land 
without  the  assent  or  knowledge  of  the  co- 
tenant  and  without  substantially  benefiting 
it  thereby  see  Kidder  v.  Rixford,  16  Vt.  169, 
42  Am.  Dec.  504. 

Statutes  giving  compensation  for  improve- 
ments to  a  defendant  are  held  not  to  be  ap- 
plicable to  cases  of  tenancy  in  common.  Mor- 
ris r.  McKay,  40  Mich.  326 ;  Sands  v.  Davis, 
40  Mich.  14;  Martin  v.  O'Conner,  37  Mich. 
440;  Holt  V.  Couch,  125  N.  C.  456,  34  S.  E. 
703,  74  Am.  St.  Eep.  648. 

One  tenant  in  common  of  a  mining  claim, 
who  without  the  consent  of  the  cotenants 
incurs  expenses  in  prospecting,  cannot  de- 
mand contribution  from  the  cotenants;  but 
a  tenant  operating  a  mine  may,  when  called 
on  to  account  for  the  profits,  set  off  as 
against  a  non-operating  tenant  the  cost  of 
improvements,  on  his  showing  that  the  im- 
provements were  necessary  and  enhanced  the 
value  of  the  common  property.  Wolfe  v. 
Childs,  42  Colo.  121,  94  Pac.  292,  126  Am. 
St.  Eep.  152. 

33.  Pickering  v.  Pickering,  63  N.  H.  468, 
3  Atl.  744;  Weller  v.  Rolason,  17  N.  J.  Eq. 
13.  But  see  RuflFners  v.  Lewis,  7  Leigh  (Va.) 
720,  30  Am.  Dec.  513. 

No  part  of  costs,  fees,  or  other  expenses 
incurred  by  one  cotenant  of  common  property 
in  relation  thereto  is  chargeable  to  the  other 
cotenants  in  the  absence  of  statute  or  agree- 
ment unless  they  are  for  the  benefit  of  the 

[III,  E,  2,  a] 


58     [38  Cyc] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


held  that  he  cannot  do  so  except  on  notice  and  an  opportunity  to  the  others  to 
unite  in  making  the  repairs,  unless  they  are  made  under  such  circumstances  as 
excuse  a  want  of  notice.^  No  distinction  is  made  in  regard  to  the  right  of  a 
cotenant  to  recover  contribution  for  sums  expended  in  making  necessary  repairs 
upon  the  common  property,  between  one  who  at  the  time  of  making  such  expendi- 
tures had  legal  title,  and  one  who  at  that  time  was  in  fact  the  owner  of  an  undivided 
portion  of  the  premises,  having  completed  a  contract  of  purchase,  agreed  upon 
all  the  terms,  and  gone  into  possession,  but  who  had  not  then  received  his  deed.'^ 
A  tenant  in  common  cannot  enforce  contribution  if  he  asserts  ownership  of  the 
entire  title  as  against  his  cotenants.^' 

b.  Basis  and  Amount  of  Contribution.  A  cotenant  expending  more  than  his 
proportionate  share  under  circumstances  which  entitle  him  to  contribution 
may  recover  from  his  cotenants  ratably  the  amount  of  such  overpayment,^'  and 


common  property.  Haywood  f.  Daves,  80 
N.  C.  338;  Croasdale  f.  Von  Boyneburgk, 
206  Pa.  St.  15,  55  Atl.  770;  Paine  v.  Slocum, 
66  Vt.  504.  See  also  Rogers  c.  White,  6 
Me.  193.  A  deed  by  several  tenants  in  com- 
mon in  litigation  to  one  of  their  number  in 
trust,  to  take  such  steps  as  he  shall  judge 
to  be  necessary  and  proper  to  discharge  all 
encumbrances  upon  or  claim  against  the  said 
land,  does  not  provide,  either  in  express  terms 
or  by  necessary  implication,  for  the  payment 
of  the  fees  of  an  attorney  for  services  ren- 
dered in  the  litigation.  Gordon  t.  McCulloh, 
66  Md.  245,  7  Atl.  457.  But  where  expenses 
were  incurred  in  a  necessary  action  of  eject- 
ment it  was  held  that  the  tenant  in  com- 
mon so  expending  moneys  and  thus  gaining 
possession  would  not  be  compelled  to  let 
his  tenants  in  common  into  possession  of 
their  undivided  moiety  until  they  paid  or 
tendered  him  one  half  of  the  expense  of  said 
action,  and  he  might  retain  possession  of  the 
whole.  Gregg  v.  Patterson,  9  Watts  &  S. 
(Pa.)    197. 

The  repairs  or  improvements  must  have 
been  made  for  the  common  benefit.  Where 
either  repairs  or  improvements  are  made  for 
the  sole  benefit  of  the  person  paying  there- 
for, under  the  belief  on  the  part  of  said  per- 
son that  he  is  the  sole  owner  of  the  com- 
mon property,  he  is  not  entitled  to  contri- 
bution. Nahaolelua  r.  Aaaahu,  10  Hawaii 
662;  Alleman  f.  Hawley,  117  Ind.  532,  20 
N.  E.  441;  Becnel  v.  Becnel,  23  La.  Ann.  150 
(placing  improvements  on  a  plantation  to  aid 
in  securing  the  crop,  where  one  of  the  com- 
mon owners  remains  on  the  common  prop- 
erty and  cultivates  it)  ;  Stephens  r.  Ells,  65 
Mo.  456  (purchasing  joint  property  at  a 
partition  sale  which  at  said  time  is  subject 
to  a  lien  for  taxes,  and  subsequently  paying 
said  taxes)  ;  Gregg  i.  Patterson,  9  Watts 
&  S.  (Pa.)  197  (erecting  buildings  and  mak- 
ing valuable  improvements  by  one  who  be- 
lieves that  he  is  the  sole  owner  of  the  com- 
mon property)  ;  German  Sav.,  etc.,  Soc.  v. 
Tull,  136  Fed.  1,  69  C.  C.  A.  1.  See  also 
Bodkin  f.  Arnold,  48  W.  Va.  108;  35  S.  E. 
980. 

34.  Hill  V.  Crocker,  87  Me.  208,  32  Atl. 
878,  47  Am.  St.  Rep.  321;  Benson  v.  Thomp- 
son, 27  Me.  470,  46  Am.  Dec.  617;  Doane  f. 
Badger,  12  Mass.  65 ;  Stevens  v.  Thompson, 
17  N.  H.  103. 
[Ill,  E,  2,  a] 


Where,  under  a  statute  providing  that  an 
owner  of  an  undivided  interest  in  certain 
land  may  pay  his  share  of  the  whole  tax 
thereon  and  thus  relieve  his  interest  from 
the  tax,  such  a  cobwner  pays  the  tax  of  a 
cotenant's  share  without  request,  there  is  no 
contribution.  Wilson  v.  Sanger,  57  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  323,  68  N.  y.  Suppl.   124. 

35.  Williams  v.  Coombs,  88  Me.  183,  33 
Atl.  1073;  Dech's  Appeal,  57  Pa.  St.  467; 
Anderson  v.  Greble,   1  Ashm.    (Pa.)    136. 

36.  Burgett  v.  Taliaferro,  118  HI.  503,  9 
N.  E.  334;  Foster  v.  Weaver,  118  Pa.  St. 
42,  12  Atl.  313,  4  Am.  St.  Rep.  573;  German 
Sav.,  etc.,  Soc.  v.  Tull,  136  Fed.  1,  69 
C.  C.  A.   1. 

A  disseizor,  although  chargeable  with  the 
rental  value  of  his  cotenant's  share,  whether 
or  not  he  has  received  any  rent  therefor,  is 
not  entitled  to  contribution  for  any  improve- 
ments. Hannah  v.  Carver,  121  Ind.  278,  23 
X.  E.  93;  Rippe  c.  Badger,  125  Iowa  725, 
101  N.  W.  642,  106  Am.  St.  Rep.  336 ;  Austin 
V.  Barrett,  44  Iowa  488;  Van  Denberg  v. 
Brat,  2  Cai.  (N.  Y.)  303;  Gregg  v.  Patter- 
son, 9  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.)  197.  See  also  Ma- 
teer  v.  Jones,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1907)  102 
S.  W.  734;  Strong  r.  Hunt.  20  Vt.  614; 
Stewart  r.  Stewart,  90  Wis.  516,  63  N.  W. 
886,  48  Am.  St.  Rep.  949.  But  it  appears 
that  where  such  a  disseizor  claims  the  whole 
title  mistakenly,  but  in  good  faith,  he  is 
entitled  to  an  allowance  for  his  improve- 
ments from  the  rents  of  the  common  prop- 
erty. Duke  [.  Reed,  64  Tex.  705.  It  is  held 
that  if  a  suit  is  brought  by  a  tenant  in  com- 
mon against  a  cotenant  claiming  adversely, 
in  good  faith,  for  plaintiff's  share  of  the 
rental  value,  such  plaintiff  is  not  entitled  to 
share  in  the  enhanced  rental  value  resulting 
from  improvements  made  by  defendant. 
Carver  r.  Fennimore,  116  Ind.  236,  19  N  E 
103.  ■      ■ 

37.  Iowa. —  Koboliska  v.  Swehla,  107  Iowa 
124,  77  N.  W.  576. 

Kansas. —  Young  r.  Bigger,  73  Kan.  146, 
84  Pac.  747. 

Maine. —  Rogers   r.   White,   6   Me.   193. 

Massachusetts. —  Gwinneth  r.  Thompson  9 
Pick.  31,  19  Am.  Dec.  350. 

Mississippi. —  Bennett  v.  Bennett,  84  Miss 
493,  36  So.  452. 

Xeiraska. —  Oliver  v.  Lansins,  57  Nebr 
352,  77  N.  W.  802.  °' 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc]     59 


a  tenant  in  common,  being  entitled  to  contribution  for  services,  repairs,  and 
improvements,  is  not  entitled  to  have  his  cotenants  contribute  therefor  more 
than  their  proportionate  share,  according  to  the  respective  interests  of  the  parties; 
in  the  case  of  improvements  to  the  common  property  the  basis  of  calculation  for 
contribution  is  the  value  added  to  the  land  by  the  improvements;  and  if  the 
added  value  exceeds  the  cost,  then  he  is  only  entitled  to  have  his  cotenants  con- 
tribute their  proportionate  share  of  the  cost.'*  The  amount  of  contribution  to 
which  a  tenant  in  common  is  entitled  will,  in  the  absence  of  statute  or  an  agreement 
to  the  contrary,  be  limited  to  a  proportionate  share  of  the  benefit  derived  by  his 
cotenants  from  the  expenditures  for  which  he  is  so  entitled,  provided  such 
share  does  not  exceed  the  amount  of  such  expenditures.^"  If  the  expenditures 
are  made  without  the  consent  of  the  other  cotenants,  or  over  their  objections, 
his  reimbursements  for  such  expenditures  may  be  limited  to  the  amount  of  income 
and  profit  received  by  him  from  the  common  property.^" 

e.  Right  to  Contribution  as  Dependent  Upon  Sharing  Rents  and  Profits,  and 
Conversely.  Where  a  tenant  in  common  claims  contribution  from  his  cotenants 
for  improvements  made  by  him,  he  must  share  with  them  the  rents  and  profits 
received  by  him;  *^  and,  conversely,  if  he  is  called  upon  for  an  accounting  of  the 
rents  and  profits,  he  is  entitled  to  be  allowed  for  advances  properly  and  reason- 
ably made  by  him  for  repairs  and  improvements,  and  for  principal  and  interest 
on  the  encumbrances  paid  by  him,  if  any,  with  interest  from  the  time  the  advances 


Virginia. —  Grove  r.  Grove,  100  Va.  556, 
42  S.  E.  312. 

38.  Alabama. —  Horton  v.  Sledge,  29  Ala. 
478. 

Michigan. —  Eighmey  v.  Thayer,  135  Mich. 
682,  98  N.  W.  734,  66  L.  K.  A.  915. 

Tennessee. —  Broyles  v.  Waddel,  11  Heisk. 
32. 

Vermorat.— Strong  v.  Hunt,  20  Vt.  614. 

Wisconsin. —  Stewart  v.  Stewart,  90  Wis. 
516,  63  N.  W.  886,  48  Am.  St.  Rep.  949; 
Ph(Enix  Lead  Min.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sydnor,  39 
Wis.  600. 

Limited  to  expenditure. —  The  amount  a 
tenant  in  common  incurring  expenses  in  mak- 
ing improvements  on  the  common  property 
may  recover  from  his  cotenant  must  be  based 
on  the  expenditure,  and  no,t  on  the  fair 
market  value  of  the  improvement,  or  on  what 
they  are  reasonably  worth.  Contaldi  V. 
Erriehetti,  79  Conn.  273,  64  Atl.  211. 

39.  Hawaii. —  Kanakamaikai  v.  Pahulio, 
12  Hawaii  1;  Nahaolelua  v.  Kaaahu,  10 
Hawaii  662. 

Illinois. —  Heppe  l'.  Szczepanski,  209  111. 
88,  70  N.  E.  737,  101  Am.  St.  Rep.  221. 

Kamsas. —  Phipps  v.  Phipps,  47  Kan.  328, 
27  Pac.  972. 

Louisiana. —  Toler  v.  Bunch,  34  La.  Ann. 
997. 

Massachusetts. —  Gwinneth  v.  Thompson,  9 
Pick.  31,  19  Am.  Dec.  350. 

Michigan. —  Eighmey  v.  Thayer,  135  Mich. 
682,  98  N.  W.  734,  66  L.  R.  A.  915. 

New  Mexico. —  Armijo  v.  Neher,  11  N.  M. 
645,  72  Pac.  12. 

Pennsylvania. —  Anderson  v.  Greble,  1 
Ashm.  136. 

Vermont. — Earrand  f.  Gleason,  56  Vt.  633; 
Strong  V.  Hunt,  20  Vt.  614. 

Partial  contribution  for  unnecessary  im- 
provements.— Where  a  tenant  in  common  in 
repairing  the   common   property   makes   un- 


necessary improvements,  or  repairs  of  an 
unnecessary  character,  he  is  not  entitled  to 
full  contribution;  but,  under  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  he  may  be  entitled  to 
partial  contribution.  Middlebury  Electric 
Co.  V.  Tupper,  70  Vt.  603,  41  Atl.  582. 

So  where  a  cotenant  pays  taxes  upon  the 
premises  and  the  interest  on  a  mortgage 
thereon  during  the  lifetime  of  a  widow  in 
possession  thereof  entitled  to  dower  therein, 
but  which  had  not  been  admeasured,  he  can 
only  recover  from  his  cotenants  the  share 
of  such  taxes  and  interest  paid  for  their 
benefit,  but  not  the  share  thereof  paid  for 
the  benefit  of  the  widow  for  which  she  was 
liable.  Arthur  v.  Arthur,  76  N.  Y.  App. 
Div.  330,  78  N.  Y.  Suppl.  486. 

40.  Williams  v.  Coombs,  88  Me.  183,  33 
Atl.  1073. 

41.  District  of  Columiia. — Alexander  v. 
Douglass,  6  D.  C.  247. 

Michigan. —  Eighmey  v.  Thayer,  135  Mich. 
682,  98  N".  W.  734,  66  L.  R.  A.  915. 

Netv  Mexico. —  Neher  f.  Armijo,  9  N.  M. 
325,  54  Pac.  236,  11  N.  M.  67,  66  Pac.  517. 

Teajos.— Duke  v.  Reed,  64  Tex.  705. 

Virginia. —  Graham  v.  Pierce,  19  Gratt. 
28,  100  Am.  Dec.  658. 

England. — Williams  v.  Williams,  68  L.  J. 
Ch.  528,  81  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  163;  Kenrick  V. 
Mountsteven,  48  Wkly.  Rep.  141. 

Canada. —  Rice  v.  George,  20  Grant  Ch. 
(U.  C.)    221. 

Where  one  made  improvements  believing 
himself,  in  good  faith,  to  b«  the  sole  owner, 
he  was  held  not  to  be  entitled  to  be  pro- 
portionately reimbursed  by  his  cotenant;  he 
only  had  the  right  to  such  reimbursement 
as  he  may  have  received  from  the  rents  and 
profits.  Gregg  v.  Patterson,  9  Watts  &  S. 
(Pa.)    197. 

He  must  consent  to  be  charged  with  occu- 
pation rent,   if  he  claims   payment   for   im- 

[III,  E,  2,  e] 


60     [38  Cycj 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


are  made.*^  Evidence  of  a  declaration  to  a  disinterested  person  by  a  tenant  in 
common  so  making  the  expenditures  that  he  is  operating  the  common  property 
entirely  at  his  own  expense  is  not  sufficient  to  establish  a  contract  by  him  not  to 
make  any  demand  on  account  of  his  expenses." 

d.  Right  as  Affected  by  Statute.  The  ordinary  rule  that  statutes  in  contra- 
vention of  common  right  are  strictly  construed  is  peculiarly  applicable  to  tenants 
in  common."  So  a  statute  providing  for  allowance  for  improvements  or  better- 
ments to  purchasers  making  improvements  under  the  belief  that  they  have  a  good 
title  has  no  application  to  the  case  of  tenants  in  common;  ^^  nor  has  a  statute 
giving  compensation  for  improvements  to  a  defendant  in  ejectment  after  a  certain 
number  of  years.^"  But  a  statute  authorizing  defendants  in  ejectment,  in  certain 
cases,  to  recover  the  value  of  their  permanent  improvements  on  the  land,  has 
been  held  to  apply  to  an  action  in  which  plaintiff  recovers  an  undivided  interest 
as  cotenant  of  defendant.*' 

e.  Remedies.  Contribution  is  recoverable  either  by  bill  in  equity,*^  or  in 
some  states  in  an  ordinary  civil  action.*'  The  question  of  the  right  to  contribution 
must  be  raised  in  some  direct  proceeding  for  that  purpose,  and  cannot  be  adjudi- 
cated collaterally  in  some  other  suit;  ^"  and  the  claim  must  be  made  within  a 


Robbins,  71   Wis. 

Chapman,  36  Fed. 
Co.,  17   Fed.  466, 


provements.     Eiee  f.   George,   20  Grant   Ch. 
(U.  C.)   221. 

42.  Massachusetts. —  Dewing  r.  Dewing, 
165  Mass.  230,  42  N.  E.  1128;  Backus  v. 
Chapman,  111  Mass.  386. 

Neto  Hampshire. —  Pickering  v.  Pickering, 
63  N   H.  468,  3  Atl.  744. 

New  York. —  Hannan  f.  Osborn,  4  Paige 
336. 

North  Carolina. —  Holt  v.  Couch,  125  N.  C. 
456,  34  S.  E.  703,  74  Am.  St.  Rep.  648. 

Pennsylvania. —  Anderson  v.  Greble,  1 
Ashm.  136. 

Texas.—  Eastham  v.  Sims,  11  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  133,  32  S.  W.  359. 

Virginia. —  Ruffner  v.  Lewis,  7  Leigh  720, 
30  Am.  Dec.  513. 

West  Virginia. —  See  Bodkin  v.  Arnold,  48 
W.  Va.  108,  35  S.  E.  980. 

Wisconsin. —  Tipping  v. 
507,  37  N.  W.  427. 

United  States. — Davis  v. 
42 ;  Austin  v.  Rutland  R. 
21  Blatchf.  358. 

43.  Danforth  v.  Moore,  55  N.  J.  Eq.  127, 
35  Atl.  410. 

44.  See  cases  cited  infra,  this  and  the  fol- 
lowing notes. 

Where  treble  damages  were  provided  by 
statute  for  the  cutting  and  conversion  of 
timber  trees  growing  on  the  lands  of  another, 
and  a  subsequent  statute  provided  that  if  a 
tenant  in  common  cut  or  removed  any  timber 
without  the  written  consent  of  his  cotenant, 
the  injured  person  should  have  every  remedy 
that  he  would  have  against  an  entire 
stranger,  it  was  held  that  the  penalty  pro- 
vided in  the  first-named  statute  was  not  by 
the  second  statute  extended  to  an  action  in 
relation  to  a  cotenancy.  Central  Trust  Co. 
f.  New  York  Equipment  Co.,  87  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
421,  34  IM.  y.  Suppl.  349;  Wheeler  v.  Car- 
penter, 107  Pa.  St.  271. 

A  statute  providing  that  necessary  repairs 
to  be  made  in  any  mill,  mill  dam,  or  flume 
owned  by  joint  tenants  or  tenants  in  com- 
mon,   when    the    privilege    of    the    water    is 

[III,  E,  2,  e] 


owned  jointly  or  in  common,  shall  be  made 
by  such  owners  in  proportion  to  their  re- 
spective interests,  said  statute  further 
providing  for  the  submission  of  the  matter 
to  selectmen,  was  held  not  to  apply  to  the 
case  of  tenants  in  common  not  being  also  co- 
tenants  of  the  water  power  necessary  to 
work  such  mill.  Roberts  v:  Peavey,  27  N.  H. 
477. 

45.  Holt  V.  Couch,  125  N.  C.  456,  34  S.  E. 
703,  74  Am.  St.  Rep.  648. 

46.  Morris  v.  McKay,  40  Mich.  326;  Sands 
V.  Davis,  40  Mich.  14;  Martin  v.  O'Connor, 
37  Mich.  440,  under  Comp.  Laws,  §§  6252- 
6253. 

47.  Phoenix  Lead  Min.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sydnor, 
39  Wis.  600,  under  Rev.  St.  c.  141, 
§§  30-33. 

48.  McDearman  v.  McClure,  31  Ark.  559; 
Kenopsky  v.  Davis,  27  La.  Ann.  174;  Ward 
c.  Ward,  40  W.  Va.  611,  21  S.  E.  746,  52 
Am.  St.  Rep.,  911,  29  L.  R.  A.  449. 

Equity  usually  affords  the  sole  remedy 
between  cotenants  or  their  assignees  for  ad- 
vances made,  in  the  absence  of  statute.  Arey 
V.  Hall,  81  Me.  17,  16  Atl.  302,  10  Am.  St. 
Rep.  232.  See  also  Wood  v.  Merritt,  2 
Bosw.    (N.  Y.)    368. 

49.  Fowler  v.  Fowler,  50  Conn.  256. 

The  remedy  at  common  law  against  a  co- 
tenant  refusing  to  unite  in  making  repairs 
was  not  in  assumpsit,  but  by  writ  de  repara- 
tione  facienda,  sued  out  before  the  repairs 
were  made,  in  which  proceeding  an  appropri- 
ate order  was  entered,  requiring  them  to  be 
made  at  the  expense  of  all  the  tenants. 
Cooper  V.  Brown,  143  Iowa  482,  122  N.  W. 
144. 

50.  Brown  t:  Budd,  2  Ind.  442;  Stevens 
f.  Thompson,  17  N.  H.  103;  Mavfield  v.  Mc- 
Knight,  (Tenn.  Ch.  App.  1899)  56  S.  W.  42; 
Morris  v.  Roseberry,  46  W.  Va.  24,  32  S  E 
1019. 

The  personal  representatives  of  a  deceased 
cotenant  should  be  made  parties  to  a  suit  for 
contribution.  Venable  v.  Beauchamp,  3  Dana 
(Ky.)   321,  28  Am.  Dec.  74. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cye.]     61 


reasonable  time,  otherwise  it  may  be  barred  by  laches.^*  Where  there  is  neither 
an  agreement,  a  consent,  nor  a  ratification  for  making  expenditures  on  the  com- 
mon property,  or  a  statute  to  the  contrary,  the  remedy  for  a  tenant  in  common 
who  makes  expenditures  on  the  common  property  is  to  have  the  part  improved 
set  aside  to  him  on  a  partition,  or,  this  being  impracticable,  to  obtain  an  equitable 
allowance  for  necessary  expenditures,  or  sale  in  lieu  of  partition;  '"'^  in  which  event 
equity  will  direct  an  account  and  suitable  compensation  for  such  improvements.^^ 
A  tenant  in  common  so  making  expenditures  should  be  allowed  to  equitably  set 
them  off  against  the  income.^*  An  injunction  may  issue  to  restrain  the  execution 
on  a  judgment  in  ejectment  until  after  payment  for  improvements.^^ 

f.  Lien.  Necessary  improvements,  expenditures,  or  services  in  relation  to 
the  common  property  for  the  common  benefit  may  create  an  equitable  lien  between 
cotenants  in  the  premises.^"    But  special  circumstances  must  be  shown  to  bring 


51.  German  v.  Heath,  139  Iowa  52,  116 
N.  W.  1051. 

52.  Hawaii. —  Nahaolelua  v.  Kaaahu,  10 
Hawaii  662. 

Indiana. — ^Alleman  v.  Hawley,  117  Ind.  532, 
20  N.  E.  441. 

lotoa. —  Van  Ormer  i:  Harley,  102  Iowa 
150,  71  N.  W.  241. 

Kentucky. — Armstrong  v.  Bryant,  16  S.  W. 
463,  13  Ky.  L.  Eep.  128. 

New  Jersey. —  Danforth  v.  Moore,  55  N".  J. 
Eq.  127,  35  Atl.  410. 

Texas. —  Mahon  v.  Barnett,  (Civ.  App. 
1897)  45  S.  W.  24;  Calhoun  v.  Stark,  13 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  60,  35  S.  W.  410. 

Virginia. —  Ballou  v.  Ballon,  94  Va.  350, 
26  S.  E.  840,  64  Am.  St.  Eep.  733. 

West  Virginia. — ^Williamson  v.  Jones,  43' 
W.  Va.  562,  27  S.  E.  411,  64  Am.  St.  Eep. 
891,  38  L.  E.  A.  694. 

Purchase  of  cotenant's  share. — ^Where  a 
tenant  in  common  made  improvements  on  his 
half  interest,  purchased  the  other  tenant's 
interest,  and  gave  purchase-money  notes 
therefor,  thus  taking  to  himself  the  entire 
title  to  the  property,  he  could  not  have  an 
artificial  division  thereof  into  half  interests, 
with  himself  alone,  against  the  holders  of 
the  notes  before  foreclosure  thereof.  Burge 
V.  Chestnut,    (Ky.   1909)    121  S.  W.  989. 

Money  raised  on  mortgage  by  all  the  co- 
tenants,  expended  for  permanent  improve- 
ment of  the  common  property,  remaining 
unpaid  at  the  time  of  the  sale  of  said  prop- 
erty, should  be  allowed  in  equity,  but  not 
in  excess  of  the  amount  actually  expended 
or  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  the  prop- 
erty so  improved,  and  such  allowance  should 
be  charged  proportionately  to  the  respective 
interests  in  the  common  property.  In  re 
Cook,  [1896]  1  Ch.  923,  65  L.  J.  Ch.  654,  74 
L.  T.  Eep.  N.  S.  652,  44  Wkly.  Eep.  646;  In 
re  Jones,  [1893]  2  Ch.  461,  62  L.  J.  Ch.  996, 
69  L.  T.  Eep.  N.  S.  45,  3  Eeports  498 ;  Wat- 
son V.  Gass,  51  L.  J.  Ch.  480,  45  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  582,  30  Wkly.  Eep.  286. 

53.  District  of  Columbia. — Alexander  v. 
Douglass,  6  D.  C.  247. 

Geor-ffm.— Turnbull  v.  Foster,  116  Ga.  765, 
43  S.  E.  42 ;  Bazemore  v.  Davis,  55  Ga.  504. 

Mississippi. —  Nelson  v.  Leake,  25  Miss. 
199. 

New  Hampshire. —  Pickering  v.  Pickering, 
63  N.  H.  468,  3  Atl.  744. 


North  Carolina. —  Holt  v.  Couch,  125  N.  C. 
456,  34  S.  E.  703,  74  Am.  St.  Eep.  648. 

Texas. —  Branch  v.  Makeig,  9  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  399,  28  S.  W.  1050. 

Virginia. —  Ballou  v.  Ballou,  94  Va.  350, 
26  S.  E.  840,  64  Am.  St.  Rep.  733;  Euffners 
f.  Lewis,  7  Leigh  720,  30  Am.  Dec.  513. 

West  Virginia. — Ward  v.  Ward,  50  W.  Va. 
517,  40  S.  E.  472.  See  also  29  L.  R.  A.  452 
note. 

54.  Alabama. —  Pegram  v.  Barker,  115 
Ala.  543,  22  So.  131. 

Massachusetts. —  Dewing  v.  Dewing,  165 
Mass.  230,  42  N.  E.  1128. 

Minnesota. —  Kean  v.  Connelly,  25  Minn. 
222,  33  Am.  Eep.  458. 

New  York. —  Hannan  v.  Osborn,  4  Paige 
336. 

Termessee. —  Tyner  ».    Fenner,   4  Lea  469. 

West  Virginia. —  Bodkin  v.  Arnold,  48 
W.  Va.  108,  35  S.  E.  980. 

United  States. —  Davis  t\  Chapman,  36 
Fed.  42. 

England. —  Pascoe  v.  Swan,  27  Beav.  508, 
5  Jur.  N.  S.  1235,  29  L.  J.  Ch.  159,  1  L.  T. 
Eep.  N.  S.  17,  8  Wkly.  Rep.  130,  54  Eng. 
Reprint  201. 

55.  Russell   v.   Defrance,   39   Mo.  506. 

56.  Arkansas. —  Drennen  v.  Walker,  21 
Ark.  539. 

Kentucky. —  Hotopp  v.  Morrison  Lodge 
No.  76,  110  Ky.  987,  63  S.  W.  44,  23  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  418;  Burch  v.  Burch,  82  Ky.  622;  Alex- 
ander V.  Ellison,  79  Ky.   148. 

Michigan. —  Patrick  v.  Young  Men's  Chris- 
tian Assoc,  120  Mich.   185,  79  N.  W.  208. 

Mississippi. —  Bennett  v.  Bennett,  84  Miss. 
493,  36  So.  452;  Davidson  v.  Wallace,  53 
Miss.  475. 

New  York. —  Jones  v.  Duerk,  25  N.  Y.  App. 
Div.  551,  49  N.  Y.  Suppl.  987;  Green  v.  Put- 
nam, 1  Barb.  500;  Bowen  v.  Kaughran,  1 
N.  Y.  St.  121. 

Teasas.— Torrey  v.  Martin,  (1887)  4  S.  W. 
642 ;  Branch  v.  Makeig,  9  Tex.  Civ.  App.  399, 
28  S.  W.  1050:  Robinson  v.  Moore,  1  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  93.  20  S.  W.  994.  See  also  Curtis 
V.  Poland,  66  Tex.  511,  2  S.  W.  39. 

West  Virginia. — Ward  v.  Ward,  40  W.  Va. 
611,  21  S.  E.  746,  52  Am.  St.  Rep.  911,  29 
L.  E.  A.  449. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §§  94,  99.  And  see  supra,' lU,  D,  1, 
c;  III,  D,  2,  b. 

[Ill,  E,  2.  f] 


62     [38  Cye,] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


such  claim  within  the  rights  of  a  lien,"'  and  a  tenant  in  common  is  not  entitled  to 
a  lien  for  common  expenses  on  the  interests  of  his  cotenants  when  it  can  neither 
be  ascertained  of  what  the  expense  consists  nor  to  which  of  several  tracts  com- 
prising the  common  estate  it  pertains,**  nor  is  he  entitled  to  such  lien  for  money 
paid  out  for  the  support  of  his  cotenant.*"  The  lien,  if  it  exists,  may  be  waived,"" 
and  cotenants  may  contract  with  each  other  for  the  improvement  of  the  common 
property  and  waive  the  rights  of  lien  both  for  themselves  and  their  subcontractors." 
F.  Rent,  Income,  and  Profits  —  l.  Collection  and  Application  of  Rents. 
Any  of  the  cotenants  may  collect  the  rent  for  the  common  property,'^  and  may 
apply  it  to  pay  a  proper  charge  on  the  common  property;  but  he  has  no  right  to 
apply  it  to  charges  disconnected  with  said  common  ownership. °^    If  rents,  income. 


In  the  case  of  peisonal  property  where  the 
tenant  in  common  may  lawfully  control  the 
same,  he  in  possession  has  a  right  to  employ 
another  to  care  for  the  property,  who  will 
have  a  lien  dependent  on  possession  for  the 
pavment  of  such  services.  Williamson  i". 
Moore,  10  Ida.  749,  80  Pac.  227;  Taylor  v. 
Baldwin,  10  Barb.  (X.  Y.)  582  [affirmed  in 
10  Barb.  626];  Ward  r.  Ward,  40  W.  Va. 
611,  21  S.  E.  746,  52  Am.  St.  Eep.  911,  29 
L.  R.  A.  449,  lien.  See  also  Torrey  r.  Mar- 
tin,  (Tex.  Sup.   1887)   4  S.  W.  642. 

Compelling  contribution  in  equity  is  not 
creating  a  lien.  Williams  c.  Coombs,  88  Me. 
184,  33  Atl.  1073. 

A  lien  may  follow  the  estate  even  into  the 
hands  of  a  purchaser  without  notice.  Cot- 
ton r.  Rand,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1898)  51  S.  W. 
55. 

Priority  of  lien  for  improvements  as 
against  subsequent  mortgagee. —  The  lien 
for  an  equitable  share  of  the  cost  of  improve- 
ments on  the  common  property  bv  a  tenant 
in  common  with  the  consent  of  his  cotenant 
therein,  before  the  execution  of  a  mortgage 
of  the  share  of  the  consenting  tenant,  takes 
priority  of  such  mortgage.  Stenger  v.  Ed- 
wards, 70  111.  631;  Gardner  r.  Diederichs,  41 
111.  158. 

Liability  of  wife. —  There  is  no  personal 
liability  of  a  wife,  in  relation  to  a  contract 
by  the  husband,  for  improvements  on  their 
common  property;  and  no  mechanic's  lien  at- 
taches to  her  interest  therein,  unless  other- 
wise provided  bv  statute.  Smith  c.  O'Don- 
nell,  15  Misc.  (X.  Y.)  98,  36  X.  Y.  Suppl. 
480. 

57.  Taylor  r.  Baldwin,  10  Barb.  (X.  Y.) 
582  [affirmed  in  10  Barb.  626]. 

58.  Cotton  1-.  Coit,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1895) 
30  S.  W.  281  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in 
88  Tex.  414,  31  S.  W.  1061]. 

59.  Branch  r.  Makeig,  9  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
399,  28  S.  W.   1050. 

60.  Westmoreland  Guarantee  Bldg.,  etc., 
Assoc,  i;.  Connor,  216  Pa.  St.  543,  65  Atl. 
1089. 

A  conveyance  from  one  coparcener  to  an- 
other coparcener  of  his  undivided  interest  in 
the  common  land  does  not  pass  his  preexist- 
ing demand  against  his  coparceners  or  their 
interests  in  the  land  for  improvements  put 
on  the  land,  unless  such  demand  is  expressly 
released  or  transferred  in  the  conveyance. 
Ward  r.  Ward,  50  W.  Va.  517,  40  S.  E.  472. 

61.  Westmoreland    Guarantee    Bldg.,    etc., 

[Ill,  E,  2  f] 


Assoc.  V.   Connor,  216   Pa.  St.  543,   65   AtL 
1089. 

62.  Miner  f.  Lorman,  70  Mich.  173,  38 
X.  W.  18;  Foster  t>.  Magee,  2  Lans.  (X'^.  Y.) 
182;  Decker  v.  Livingston,  15  Johns.  (X.  Y.) 
479.  But  see  Harrison  i:  Barnby,  5  T.  R. 
246,  2  Rev.  Rep.  584,  101  Eng.  Reprint  138, 
holding  that  a  terre-tenant  holding  under 
two  tenants  in  common  may  not  pay  the 
whole  rent  to  one  after  notice  from  the  other 
not  to  do  so;  if  such  pajTnent  be  made  to 
one  tenant  in  common  after  such  notice,  the 
other  may  distrain  for  his  share. 

Where  the  letting  is  joint  the  lessee  can- 
not be  obliged  to  pay  part  of  the  rent  to  each 
tenant.  Griffin  r.  Clark,  33  Barb.  (X.  Y.) 
46;  De  Coursey  v.  Guarantee  Trust,  etc.,  Co., 
81  Pa.  St.  217.  But  see  Barnum  r.  Landon, 
25  Conn.  137. 

Collects  as  owner. —  Where  one  coowner  of 
property  collects  the  rents  or  profits  of  the 
whole  he  does  so  not  in  the  capacity  of 
agent,  but  in  that  of  owner,  in  the  absence 
of  statute  or  agreement  to  the  contrary.  Van 
Ormer  v.  Harley,  102  Iowa  150,  71  N.  W. 
241;  Kennedy  r.  De  Trafford,  [1897]  A.  C. 
180,  66  L.  J.  Ch.  413,  76  L.  T.  Rep.  X.  S. 
427,  45  Wkly.  Rep.  671.  And  a  tenant  in 
conmion  receiving  rents  and  profits  from  the 
common  property  in  excess  of  his  share  is 
not  a  trustee  of  such  moneys  received  by  him 
but  merely  a  debtor  therefor;  unless  there 
be  a  statute,  a  waiver,  an  acquiescence,  or  an 
agreement,  express  or  implied,  to  the  con- 
trary. St.  John  r.  Coates,  63  Hun  (X.  Y.) 
460,  18  X.  Y.  Suppl.  419  [affirmed  in  140 
X.  Y.  634,  35  X.  E.  891] ;  Shearman  i\  Jlor- 
rison,  149  Pa.  St.  386.  24  Atl.  313;  Stehman 
V.  Campbell,  4  Pa.  Dist.  441.  There  is  no 
lien  on  his  beneficial  interest  as  against  a 
purchaser  without  notice.  British  Mut.  Inv. 
Co.  v.  Smart,  L.  R.  10  Ch.  567,  44  L.  J.  Ch. 
695,  32  L.  T.  Rep.  X.  S.  849,  23  Wkly.  Rep. 
800.  And  see  infra.  III,  F,  2,  c,  text  and 
note  84. 

63.  Indiana. — Ryason  r.  Dunten,  164  Ind. 
85,  73  X.  E.  74,  holding,  however,  that  there 
is  no  compulsion,  in  the  absence  of  agreement 
express  or  implied,  or  of  statute,  to  so  apply. 

Michigan. — ^Jliner  r.  Lorman,  70  Mich.  173, 
38  X.  W.   18. 

Veto  York. —  Griffin  r.  Clark,  33  Barb.  46; 
Cole  r.  Cole,  57  Misc.  490,  108  X.  \.  Suppl. 
124;    Hannan  i-.  Osborn,  4  Paige  336. 

Oregon. —  Minter  v.  Durham,  13  Ores.  470, 
11  Pac.  231. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cye.J     63 


or  profits  be  collected  and  proper  liens  or  charges  against  the  common  estate  be 
discharged,  in  the  absence  of  proof  to  the  contrary  it  will  be  presumed  that 
such  payments  were  made  from  the  amounts  collected;  so  that  if  a  mortgage  or 
lien  theretofore  held  by  a  tenant  in  common  or  one  in  privity  with  him  be  so 
discharged  during  the  cotenancy,  such  discharge  will  be  presumed  to  be  for  the 
benefit  of  all  the  cotenants  therein,  and  a  claim  arising  therefrom  will  be  available 
to  the  cotenant  so  claiming  in  an  accounting  only,"*  and  such  cotenant  is  entitled 
to  no  lien  therefor  in  the  premises."^  It  is  the  duty  of  a  cotenant  to  apply  the 
income  from  the  common  property  to  the  reimbursement  of  himself  for  money 
expended  by  him  in  purchasing  the  interest  of  his  cotenants  at  tax-sales,  and 
he  must  so  apply  it  and  may  not  permit  the  statute  to  run  against  them.'" 

2.  Liability  of  Cotenants  For  Rents  and  Profits  —  a.  Rule  Stated.  In  the 
absence  of  statute  or  agreement  to  the  contrary,  a  tenant  in  common,  while  merely 
in  possession  of  the  common  property,  not  excluding  his  cotenants,  nor  denying 
them  equal  enjoyment,  cannot  be  charged  with  rent  for  use  and  occupation,"' 


England. —  Williams  v.  Williams,  68  L.  J. 
Ch.  528,  81  L.  T.  Kep.  N.  S.  163. 

A  presumption  may  arise  that  rent  has 
been  so  applied.  Downey  v.  Strouse,  101  Va. 
226,  43  S.  E.  348. 

If  the  collecting  cotenant  is  warned  not  to 
use  income  or  rent  so  collected,  or  the  com- 
mon property  for  certain  purposes,  and 
nevertheless  so  uses  it,  he  may  be  held  liable 
for  rental  from  the  date  that  he  has  been 
notified  to  cease  the  application  of  the  fund 
or  the  use  of  said  property  in  such  manner. 
Boley  V.  Earutio,  24  111.  App.  515  [affirmed 
in  120  111.  192,  11  N.  E.  393];  Moreira  v. 
Schwan,  113  La.  643,  37  So.  542.  A  tenant 
in  common  claiming  rents  and  applying  them, 
with  the  acquiescence  of  her  cotenants,  to  the 
extinguishment  of  an  encumbrance,  is  not 
entitled  on  an  accounting  for  the  rents  to  a 
credit  for  the  payment  made  on  account  of 
said  encumbrance  after  her  authority  so  to 
pay  had  been  revoked.  Switzer  v.  Switzer, 
57  N.  J.  Eq.  421,  41  Atl.  486.  The  receiver 
of  a  tenant  in  common  is  not  entitled  to  an 
order  of  court  directing  the  other  cotenant 
not  to  collect  rents  from  the  common  prop- 
erty. Tyson  v.  Fairclough,  2  Sim.  &  St.  142, 
25  Rev.  Rep.  175,  1  Eng.  Ch. -142,  57  Eng. 
Reprint  300. 

64.  Knolls  V.  Barnhart,  7l  N.  Y.  474. 
See  also  Barnes  v.  Barnes,  72  S.  W.  282,  24 
Ky.  L.  Rep.   1732. 

65.  Stenger  v.  Edwards,  70  111.  631 ;  Han- 
nan  v.  Osborn,  4  Paige  (N.  Y.)  336. 

66.  Kean  v.  Connelly,  25  Minn.  222,  33 
Am.  Rep.  458;  Davis  v.  Chapman,  24  Fed. 
674. 

67.  Alalama. —  Fielder  v.  Childs,  73  Ala. 
567;  Terrell  v.  Cunningham,  70  Ala.  100; 
Newbold  v.  Smart,  67  Ala.  326. 

Arkatisas. —  Cannon  v.  Stevens,  88  Ark. 
610,  115  S.  W.  388;  Hamby  v.  Wall,  48  Ark. 
135,  2  S.  W.  705,  3  Am.  St.  Rep.  218;  Ber- 
trand  v.  Taylor,  32  Ark.  470. 

California. — Pico  v.  Columbet,  12  Cal.  414, 
73  Am.  Dec.  550. 

Connecticut. —  Southwork  v.  Smith,  27 
Conn.  355,  71  Am.  Dec.  72.  See  also  Barnum 
V.  Landon,  25  Conn.  137. 

Delaware. —  In  re  Journey,  7  Del.  Ch.  1,  44 
Atl.  795,  holding  that  heirs  at  law,  to  whom 


property  descends  previous  to  a  sale  thereof 
under  a  will,  are  in  the  position  of  other 
cotenants  in  contracting  with  each  other  for 
the  use  and  occupation  of  the  common  prop- 
erty or  maintaining  actions  against  each 
other  therefor. 

Georgia. —  Elam  v.  Moorefield,  33  Ga. 
167. 

Hawaii. — Peterson  v.  Kaanaana,  10  Hawaii 
384;  Hawaiian  Commercial,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Waikapu  Sugar  Co.,  9  Hawaii  75. 

/JZmois.— Fraser  v.  Gates,  118  111.  99,  1 
N.  E.  817;  Cheney  v.  Ricks,  87  111.  App.  388 
[affirmed  in  187"  111.  171,  58  N.  E.  234] ; 
Boley  V.  Barutio,  24  111.  App.  515  [affirmed 
in  120  111.  192,  11  N.  E.  393];.  Sconce  v. 
Sconce,  15  111.  App.  169. 

Indiana. —  Ryason  v.  Dunten,  164  Ind.  85, 
73  N.  E.  74;  Davis  v.  Hutton,  127  Ind.  481, 
26  N.  E.  187,  1006;  Crane  r.  Waggoner,  27 
Ind.  52,  89  Am.  Dec.  493;  McCrum  v.  Mc- 
Crum,  36  Ind.  App.  636,  76  N.  E.  415. 

Iowa. —  Van  Ormer  r.  Harley,  102  Iowa 
150,  71  N.  W.  241;  Belknap  ;;.  Belknap,  77 
Iowa  71,  41  N.  W.  568. 

Kentucky. —  Fightmaster  r.  Beasly,  7  J.  J. 
Marsh.  410;  Nelson  v.  Clay,  7  J.  J.  Marsh. 
138,  23  Am.  Dec.  387;  Hixon  v.  Bridges,  38 
S.  W.  1046,  18  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1068. 

Louisiana. —  Toler  v.  Bunch,  34  La.  Ann. 
997;  Balfour  v.  Balfour,  33  La.  Ann.  297; 
Morgan  v.  Morgan,  23  La.  Ann.  502;  Becnel 
V.  Becnel,  23  La.  Ann.  150. 

Maine. —  Carter  v.  Bailey,  64  Me.  458,  18 
Am.  Rep.  273. 

Maryland. —  McLaughlin  v.  McLaughlin, 
80  Md.  115,  30  Atl.  607;  Israel  v.  Israel,  30 
Md.  120,  96  Am.  Dec.  571. 

Massachusetts. —  Brown  v.  Wellington,  106 
Mass.  318,  8  Am.  Rep.  330;  Munroe  i\  Lake, 
1  Mete.  459;  Sargent  v.  Parsons,  12  Mass. 
149. 

Michigan. —  Owings  v.  Owings,  150  Mich. 
609,  114  N.  W.  393;  Wilmarth  v.  Palmer,  34 
Mich.  347;  Everts  v.  Beach,  31  Mich.  136,  18 
Am.  Rep.  169. 

Minnesota. —  Hauae  i:  Hause,  29  Minn. 
252,  13  N.  W.  43;  Kean  v.  Connelly,  25  Minn. 
222,  33  Am.  Rep.  458;  Holmes  v.  Williams, 
16  Minn.  164,  holding  the  cotenant  not  liable 
where  he  has  no  knowledge  of  his  cotenant's 

[III.  F.  2,  a] 


64     [38  CycJ 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


and  where  a  tenant  in  common  does  not  claim  more  than  his  proportionate  share, 
and  does  not  receive  rents  or  profits  for  more  than  said  share,  and  does  not  prevent 
his  tenant  in  common  from  occupying  the  property  or  receiving  or  enjoying  his 
proportionate  share  of  the  rents  and  profits,  his  cotenant  is  not  entitled  to  recover 


title  and  no  demand  of  possession  there- 
under has  been  made  on  him. 

Mississippi. —  Bennett  v.  Bennett,  84  Miss. 
493,  36  So.  452;  Her  i;.  Routh,  3  How.  276. 

Missouri. —  Childs  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  (1891)  17  S.  W.  854;  Kagan  v.  McCoy, 
29  Mo.  356 ;  Rogers  v.  Penniston,  16  Mo.  432. 

Montana. —  Ayotte  v.  Nadeau,  32  Mont. 
498,  81  Pac.  145. 

Aetw  Hampshire. —  Berry  v.  Whidden,  62 
N.  H.  473;  Webster  v.  Calef,  47  N.  H.  289. 

J  aw  Jersey. —  Lloyd  v.  Turner,  70  N.  J. 
Eq.  425,  62  Atl.  771;  Rose  v.  Cooley, 
(Ch.  1906)  62  Atl.  867;  Sailer  v.  Sailer,  41 
N.  J.  Eq.  398,  5  Atl.  319;  Swallow  i\  Swal- 
low, 31  N.  J.  Eq.  390;  Buckelew  v.  Snedeker, 
27  N.  J.  Eq.  82;  Izard  v.  Bodine,  11  N.  J. 
Eq.  403,  69  Am.  Dec.  595. 

New  York. —  Barry  v.  Coville,  129  N.  Y. 
302,  29  N.  E.  307  [affirming  13  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
4];  Adams  v.  Bristol,  126  N.  Y.  App.  Div. 
660,  111  N.  Y.  Suppl.  231;  Willes  v.  Loomis, 
94  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  67,  87  N.  Y.  Suppl.  1086; 
Biglow  V.  Biglow,  75  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  98,  77 
N.  Y.  Suppl.  716;  Valentine  v.  Healey,  86 
Hun  259,  33  N.  Y.  Suppl.  246;  Joslyn  v. 
Joslyn,  9  Hun  388;  Wilcox  v.  Wilcox,  48 
Barb.  327  (husband  occupying  in  right  of 
wife)  ;  Woolever  v.  Knapp,  18  Barb.  265; 
Cole  V.  Cole,  57  Misc.  490,  108  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
124;  Matter  of  Lucy,  4  Misc.  349,  24  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  352;  McMurray  r.  Rawson,  3  Hill  59. 

North  Carolina. —  Roberts  v.  Roberts,  55 
N.  C.  128. 

O^iio.— West  V.  Weyer,  46  Ohio  St.  66,  18 
N.  E.  537,  15  Am.  St.  Rep.  552. 

Pennsylvania. —  Kline  v.  Jacobs,  68  Pa.  St. 
57;  Coleman's  Appeal,  62  Pa.  St.  252; 
Thompson  v.  Newton,  8  Pa.  Cas.  118,  7  Atl. 
64,  2  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  362;  Wells  t:  Becker,  24 
Pa.  Super.  Ct.  174;  Spellbrink's  Estate,  3 
Pa.  Dist.  807,  15  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  506;  Under- 
wood's Estate,  5  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  621;  Keller  v. 
Lamb,  10  Kulp  246;  Jevons  v.  Kline,  9 
Kulp  305;  Kennedy's  Estate,  1  Lack.  Leg. 
N.  135;  Norris  v.  Gould,  15  Wkly.  Notes 
Cas.  187. 

Rhode  Island. —  Almy  i\  Daniels,  17  R.  I. 
543,  23  Atl.  637,  15  R.  I.  312,  4  Atl.  753,  10 
Atl.  654,  rule  applied  to  use  of  adjoining 
sidewalk.  See  also  Knowles  v.  Harris,  5 
R.  I.  402,  73  Am.  Dec.  77. 

South  Carolina. —  Buck  v.  Martin,  21  S.  C. 
590,  53  Am.  Rep.  702;  Jones  v.  Massey,  14 
S.  C.  292;  Lyles  r.  Lyles,  1  Hill  Eq.  76; 
Volentine  v.  Johnson,  1  Hill  Eq.  49;  Murray 
V.  Stevens,  Rich.  Eq.  Cas.  205. 

Tennessee. —  Schneider  r.  Taylor,  16  Lea 
304;  Tyner  v.  Fenner,  4  Lea  469,  holding 
tliat  in  order  to  compel  an  account  a  profit 
must  be  shown  over  and  above  the  mere  use. 

Texas. —  Autry  v.  Reasor,  102  Tex.  123,  108 
S.  W.  1162,  113  S.  W.  748;  Neil  r.  Schackel- 
ford,  45  Tex.  119;  Morris  v.  Morris,  47  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  244,  105  S.  W.  242;  Mahon  v.  Bar- 

[III.  F,  2,  a] 


nett,  (Civ.  App.  1897)  45  S.  W.  24;  Cal- 
houn V.  Stark,  13  Tex.  Civ.  App.  60,  35  S.  U . 
410;  Bennett  v.  Virginia  Ranch,  etc.,  Co.,  1 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  321,  21  S.  W.  126;  Ring  v. 
Smith,  1  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  1115;  McGrady 
V.  McRae,  1  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  1036.  See 
also  Anderson  v.  Clanch,  (1887)  6  S.  W.  760, 
where,  under  an  agreement  between  coten- 
ants  that  one  of  them  should  manage  the 
common  property  and  deduct  reasonable  com- 
pensation for  the  rents,  it  was  held  in  an 
accounting  that  defendant  was  not  charge- 
able with  use   and  occupation. 

Virginia. —  Ballou  v.  Ballou,  94  Va.  350, 
26  S.  E.  840,  64  Am.  St.  Rep.  733.  See  also 
Newman  t\  Newman,  27  Gratt.  714. 

West  Virginia. —  Ward  v.  Ward,  40  W.  Va. 
611,  21  S.  E.  746,  52  Am.  St.  Rep.  911,  29 
L.  R.  A.  449. 

Wisconsin. —  Bulger  v.  Woods,  3  Finn.  460. 

England.— Beer  v.  Beer,  12  C.  B.  60,  16 
Jur.  223,  21  L.  J.  C.  P.  124,  74  E.  C.  L.  60 
(holding  that  if  a  cotenant  merely  has  the 
sole  enjoyment  of  the  common  property, 
even  though  by  his  own  industry  and  capital 
he  makes  such  enjoyment  profitable  and 
takes  the  whole  of  the  said  profit,  he  does 
not  receive  more  than  comes  to  his  just 
share)  ;  McMahon  v.  Burchell,  1  Coop.  t. 
Cott.  457,  47  Eng.  Reprint  944,  2  Phil.  127, 
22  Eng.  Ch.  127,  41  Eng.  Reprint  889,  5 
Hare  322,  26  Eng.  Ch.  322,  67  Eng.  Reprint 
936;  Griffies  v.  Griffies,  8  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
758,  11  Wkly.  Rep.  943. 

Canada. —  GuptiU  v.  Ingersoll,  2  N. 
Brunsw.  Eq.  252;  Munsie  v.  Lindsay,  10  Ont. 
Pr.  173;  In  re  Kirkpatrick,  10  Ont.  Pr.  4; 
Rice  V.  George,  20  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  221; 
Bates  V.  Martin,  12  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  490. 
See  also  Adamsou  i>.  Adamson,  17  Ont.  407; 
Griffin  v.  Patterson,  45  U.  C.  Q.  B.  536. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon,"  §  83  et  seq. 

Such  occupation  may  he  considered  and 
made  an  equitable  set-off  against  the  oc- 
cupying tenant's  claim  for  repairs.  Davis  v. 
Chapman,  36  Fed.  42. 

A  bill  merely  showing  occupancy  by  the 
defendant  and  forbearance  to  occupy  on  the 
part  of  the  complainant  cannot  be  main- 
tained. Angelo  V.  Angelo,  146  111.  629,  35 
N.  E.  229;  Ayotte  V.  Nadeau,  32  Mont.  498, 
81  Pac.  145. 

If  the  common  property  was  unoccupied 
without  the  fault  of  any  of  the  tenants  in 
common  then,  on  an  accounting  between 
them,  none  of  them  should  be  charged  for 
the  use  of  the  property.  Farrand  v.  Gleason, 
56  Vt.   633. 

Cultivation  and  crops. — ^A  tenant  in  com- 
mon merely  holding  and  cultivating  the  land 
and  taking  the  entire  produce  thereof  with 
the  knowledge  and  consent  of  his  cotenant 
and  without  an  agreement  in  relation  thereto 
cannot,  in  the  absence  of  statute  or  agree- 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cye.]     65 


from  him  any  parts  of  such  rents  or  profits  received.'^  But  a  cotenant  may  be 
held  liable  where  there  is  a  statute  or  an  agreement  express  or  implied  to  that 
effect, "^  or  where  the  relation  of  the  cotenant  solely  occupying  the  whole  of  the 


ment  to  the  contrary,  be  held  liable  for  such 
use  and  occupation.  McCrary  v.  Glover,  100 
Ga.  90,  26  S.  E.  102;  Webster  v.  Calef,  47 
N.  H.  289.  See  also  Vass  v.  Hill,  (N.  J. 
Ch.)  21  Atl.  585;  West  i\  Weyer,  46  Ohio 
St.  66,  18  N.  E.  537,  15  Am.  St.  Rep.  552; 
McMahon  v.  Burchell,  3  Hare  97,  67  Eng. 
Eeprint  312,  1  Coop.  t.  Cott.  457,  47  Eng. 
Eeprint  944,  2  Phil.  127,  22  Eng.  Ch.  127, 
41  Eng.  Reprint  889.  Crops  grown  upon  the 
common  estate  by  one  tenant  in  common  of 
the  land  vest  in  and  become  the  property  of 
the  occupying  tenant,  in  the  absence  of 
agreement  or  statute  to  the  contrary.  The 
other  cotenants  have  no  property  therein. 
In  cases  of  exclusion,  where  there  is  a,  lia- 
bility of  the  occupying  tenant,  it  usually 
extends  only  to  an  accounting  for  what  he 
has  received  beyond  his  share.  There  is  no 
property  or  lien  in  the  produce.  Kennon  i\ 
Wright,  70  Ala.  434;  Bird  v.  Bird,  15  Fla. 
424,  21  Am.  Rep.  296;  Creed  v.  People,  81 
111.  565;  Becnel  v.  Becnel,  23  La.  Ann.  150; 
Moreland  v.  Strong,  115  Mich.  211,  73  N.  W. 
140,  69  Am.  St.  Rep.  553;  Harris  v.  Gregg, 

17  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  210,  45  N.  Y.  Suppl.  364; 
LeBarren  i\  Babcock,  46  Hun  (N.  Y.)  598 
[affirmed  in  122  N.  Y.  153,  25  N.  E.  253,  19 
Am.  St.  Rep.  488,  9  L.  R.  A.  625]  ;  Shearin 
V.  Riggsbee,  97  N.  C.  216,  I  S.  E.  770; 
Darden  v.  Cowper,  52  N.  C.  210,  75  Am. 
Dec.  461.  See  also  Morgan  r.  Long,  73  Miss. 
406,  19  So.  98,  55  Am.  St.  Rep.  541;  Keisel 
V.  Earnest,  21  Pa.  St.  90;  Bates  v.  Martin, 
12  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  490.  Compare  Wick- 
off  V.  Wickoff,   (N.  J.  Ch.  1889)    18  Atl.  74. 

68.  Scantlin  v.  Allison,  32  Kan.  376,  4 
Pac.  618;  Bennett  v.  Bennett,  84  Miss-  493, 
36  So.  452;  Ragan  v.  McCoy,  29  Mo.  356; 
Joslyn  V.  Joslyn,  9  Hun  (N.  Y.)  388,  under 
I  Rev.  St.  p.  750,   §  9. 

If  the  common  property  admits  of  use  and 
occupation  by  several,  and  one  of  the  tenants 
in  common  uses  and  occupies  les?  than  his 
just  share  and  proportion  of  the  common 
property,  so  as  in  no  way  to  hinder  or  ex- 
clude the  other  tenants  in  common  from,  in 
like  manner,  using  and  occupying  their  just 
share  and  proportion,  he  does  not  receive 
more  than  comes  to  his  just  share  and  pro- 
portion in  the  meaning  of  Code,  c.  100,  §  14. 
Dodson  r.  Hays,  29  W.  Va.  577,  2  S.  E.  415. 

69.  Delaware. —  In  re  Journey,  7  Del.  Ch. 
1,  44  Atl.  795. 

Illinois. —  Boley  v.  Barutio,  120  III.  192, 
II N.  E.  393;  Elliott  v.  Knight,  64  111.  App.  87. 

Indiana. —  McCrum  v.  McCrum,  36  Ind. 
App.  636,  76  ST.  E.  415. 

Maine. —  Richardson  v.  Richardson,  72  Me. 
403. 

Massachusetts. —  Backus  v.  Chapman,  111 
Mass.  386  (under  Gen.  St.  c.  134,  §  18)  ; 
Field  V.  Craig,  8  Allen  357. 

Michigan. —  Puller  v.  Sweet,  30  Mich.  237, 

18  Am.  Rep.  122. 

'New  Hampshire.—  Porter  v.  Ayer,  66  N.  H. 
400,  29  Atl.   1027. 

[5] 


New  York. —  Willes  v.  Loomis,  94  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  67,  87  N.  Y.  Suppl.  1086;  Myers 
V.  Bolton,  89  Hun  342,  35  N.  Y.  Suppl.  577 
[modified  in  157  N.  Y.  393,  52  N,  E.  114]; 
Burrell  v.  Bull,  3  Sandf.  Ch.  15. 

North  Carolina. —  See  Pitt  v.  Petway,  34 
N.  C.  69. 

Pennsylvania. —  Lancaster  v.  Flowers,  208 
Pa.  St.  199,  57  Atl.  526 ;  Clayton  v.  McCay, 
143  Pa.  St.  225,  22  Atl.  754;  Kline  v.  Jacobs, 
68  Pa.  St.  57;  Corbett  v.  Lewis,  53  Pa.  St. 
322;  Keller  v.  Lamb,  10  Kulp  246. 

Rhode  Island. —  Hazard  v.  Albro,  17  R.  I. 
181,  20  Atl.  834. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  83  et  seq. 

A  tenant  in  common  holding  over  under  a 
contract  from  his  cotenants  is  liable  for  rent 
the  same  as  a  stranger  would  be  if  holding 
over.  Harry  v.  Harry,  127  Ind.  91,  26  N.  E. 
562;  O'Connor  v.  Delaney,  53  Minn.  247,  54 
N.  W.  1108,  39  Am.  St.  Rep.  601;  Carson  a. 
Broady,  56  Nebr.  648,  77  N.  W.  80,  71  Am. 
St.  Rep.  691;  Valentine  v.  Healey,  158  N.  Y. 
369,  52  N.  E.  1097,  43  L.  R.  A.  667;  Early 
V.  Friend,  16  Gratt.  (Va.)  21,  78  Am.  Dec. 
649;  Rockwell  v.  Luck,  32  Wis.  70;  Leigh 
V.  Dickeson,  15  Q.  B.  D.  60,  54  L.  J.  Q.  B. 
18,  52  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  790,  33  Wkly.  Rep. 
538.  And  rental  value  is  properly  taken  to 
continue  the  same  as  rent  fixed  in  a  rental 
agreement  where  there  is  no  evidence  to  the 
contrary  and  the  issue  is  between  the  par- 
ties thereto.  Harry  v.  Harry,  127  Ind.  91, 
26  N.  E.  562 ;  Clayton  v.  McCay,  143  Pa.  St. 
225,  22  Atl.  754.  But  if  a  tenant  in  com- 
mon has  been  holding  under  an  agreement  to 
pay  rent  and  continues  in  possession  after 
the  expiration  of  the  lease,  but  makes  no 
claim  to  be  exclusively  entitled  to  the  pos- 
session or  offers  possession  of  his  cotenant's 
share  to  said  cotenant,  then  he  is  presumed 
not  to  be  holding  in  the  character  of  lessee 
but  of  that  of  tenant  in  common,  and  is  not 
liable  for  rent,  in  the  absence  of  statute  to 
the  contrary;  and  statutes  providing  for  lia- 
bility for  tenants  holding  over  are  liberally 
construed  in  his  favor.  Dresser  v.  Dresser, 
40  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  300;  Mumford  v.  Brown, 
1  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  52,  19  Am.  Dec.  461.  The 
presumption  is  otherwise  if  he,  after  the  ex- 
piration of  the  lease,  treats  it  as  though  it 
were  in  force  and  continues  to  discharge 
the  obligation  thereby  imposed  upon  him. 
Carson  t.  Broady,  56  Nebj.  648,  77  N.  W. 
80,  71  Am.  St.  Rep.  691. 

Question  for  jury. — Whether  or  not  the  re- 
lationship of  landlord  and  tenant  in  the  com- 
mon property  exists  between  tenants  in  com- 
mon is,  under  a  conflicting  state  of  facts,  a 
question  for  the  jury.  Chapin  v.  Foss,  75 
111.  280;  Boley  f.  Barutio,  24  111.  App.  515. 

The  untenantability  of  the  premises  is  no 
defense  to  an  action  for  rent,  under  an  ex- 
press contract  of  rental.  Kline  v.  Jacobs,  68 
Pa.  St.  57. 

[Ill,  F,  2,  a] 


66     [38  Cyc] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


common  property  is  fiduciary,'"  and  where  the  common  property  is  occupied 
adversely,  or  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other  common  owners,  by  some  of  the  coten- 
ants,  those  so  occupying  are  liable  for  so  much  of  the  rental  value  and  the  value 
of  the  profits  thereof  as   exceed  their  proportionate  share."     If  the  nature  of 


An  action  of  distraint  may  be  maintained 
between  tenants  in  common.  Luther  i".  Ar- 
nold, 8  Rich.   (S.  C.)   24,  62  Am.  Dec.  422. 

Burden  of  proof. — Where  a  contract  was 
alleged  for  the  erection  of  a  building,  and 
a  division  of  rents  after  defendant  should 
have  reimbursed  himself  from  the  rents  to 
the  extent  of  one  half  the  cost  of  the  build- 
ing, it  is  incumbent  upon  plaintiff  to  prove 
such  reimbursement.  Ayotte  f.  Nadeau,  32 
Mont.  498,  81  Pac.   145. 

A  statute  apparently  creating  liability  is 
held  not  to  apply  to  appropriation  of  prod- 
ucts of  the  joint  property  by  a  cotenant 
therein  in  exclusive  possession  thereof  with- 
out exclusion  of  his  cotenants.  Kean  v.  Con- 
nelly, 25  ilinn.  222,  33  Am.  Rep.  458.  And 
under  a  statute  providing  for  an  accounting 
between  cotenants  for  more  than  a  coten- 
ant's  share  of  the  rents  and  profits  no  re- 
covery can  be  had  for  such  products  of  the 
land  as  the  cotenant  in  possession  takes 
therefrom  for  his  own  use.    Joslvn  r.  Joslyn, 

9  Hun   (X.  Y.)   388. 

Exclusive  use  as  sufficient  consideration  to 
support  a  promise  to  pay  rent  see  Ayotte  t. 
ISTadeau,  32  ilont.  498,  81  Pac.  145. 

70.  Tarleton  c.  Goldthwaite,  23  Ala.  346, 
58  Am.  Dec.  296;  Tyler  r.  Cartwright,  40 
Mo.  App.  378;  Bates  f.  Martin,  12  Grant  Ch. 
(U.  C.)  490. 

71.  District  of  Columbia. —  Williams  v. 
Gardner,  2  MacArthxir  401. 

Illinois. —  McParland  v.  Larkin,  155  111. 
84,  39  K.  E.  609;  Chambers  v.  Jones,  72  111. 
275. 

Indiana. —  Carver  v.  Coffman,  109  Ind.  547, 

10  X.  E.  567;  Crane  v.  Waggoner,  27  Ind. 
52,  89  Am.  Dec.  493.  See  also  McCrum  i-. 
McCrum,  36  Ind.  App.  636,  76  X.  E.  415. 

loica. —  Rippe  v.  Badger,  125  Iowa  725, 
101  X.  W.  642,  106  Am.  St.  Rep.  336;  Dodge 
r.  Dodge,  85  Iowa  77,  52  X.  W.  2;  Austin  i'. 
Barrett,  44  Iowa  488;  Sears  i.  Sellew,  28 
Iowa  501. 

Kentucky. —  Vermillion  c.  Xickell,  (1908) 
114  S.  W.  270. 

Maine. —  Richardson  v.  Richardson,  72  Me. 
403. 

Massachusetts. —  Munroe  v.  Luke,  1  Mete. 
459. 

IfieAipan.— Fenton  f.  Wendell,  116  Mich. 
45,  74  X.  W.  384,  72  Am.  St.  Rep.  502.  See 
also  Wilmarth  v.  Palmer,  34  Mich.  347. 

Minnesota. —  Cook  v.  Webb,  21  Minn.  428, 
holding  that  an  action  therefor  is  in  the 
nature  of  a  common-law  action  of  trespass 
for  mesne  profits. 

Missouri. —  Bates  v.  Hamilton,  144  Mo.  1, 
45  S.  W.  641,  66  Am.  St.  Rep.  407;  Falconer 
V.  Roberts,  88  Mo.  574;  Starks  v.  Kirch- 
graber,  134  Mo.  App.  211,  113  S.  W.  1149. 

Montana. — Ayotte  v.  Nadeau,  32  Mont.  498, 
81  Pac.  145. 

^e&rasfca. —  Schuster  v.  Schuster,  84  Xebr. 

[Ill,  F,  2,  a] 


98,    120   X.    W.    948;    Names   v.   Names,   48 
Xebr.  701,  67  N.  W.  751. 

yew  Jersey.— Yass  v.  Hill,  (Ch.  1891)  21 
Atl.  585;  Edsall  v.  Merrill,  37  X.  J.  Eq.  114. 
New  York. —  Zapp  v.  Miller,  109  X.  Y.  51, 
15  N.  E.  889  (holding  that  a  tenant  in  com- 
mon fraudulently  obtaining  deeds  to  the 
common  property  is  liable  for  rent  therein 
from  the  time  of  the  delivery  of  the  deeds)  ; 
Willes  i,-.  Loomis,  94  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  67,  87 
N.  Y.  Suppl.  1086.  See  also  Myers  v.  Bolton, 
89  Hun  342,  35  X.  Y.  Suppl.  577  [reversed 
on  other  grounds  in  157  N.  Y.  393,  52  X.  E. 
114]  (holding  that  where  property  was  leased 
to  and  in  possession  of  a  firm,  and  it  was 
devised  to  the  firm  and  others,  and  remained 
in  the  possession  and  sole  occupancy  of  the 
firm  after  the  devise,  the  partners  were  liable 
to  account  to  their  cotenants  for  the  rents 
accruing  after  the  death  of  the  lessor) . 

Ohio. —  Converse  f.  Farwell,  1  Ohio  Dec. 
(Reprint)  141,  2  West.  L.  J.  SOI,  holding 
that  one  so  occupying  incurs  the  responsi- 
bility of  a  trustee;  and  if  he  negligently  ac- 
cepts notes  instead  of  money  for  the  rents, 
and  said  notes  remain  unpaid  until  after  the 
insolvency  of  the  maker  thereof,  he,  so  ac- 
cepting the  notes,  must  account  in  money  for 
the  rent  to  his  cotenants,  and  he  cannot  re- 
quire them  to  take  the  notes  received  by  him. 
Pennsylvania. —  Keisel  i\  Earnest,  21  Pa. 
St.  90;  Schreiber  f.  National  Transit  Co.,  21 
Pa.  Co.  Ct.  657. 

Rhode  Island. —  Almy  v.  Daniels,  15  R.  I. 
312,  4  Atl.  753,  10  Atl.  654. 

South  Carolina. —  Pearson  v.  Carlton,  18 
S.  C.  47;  Jones  v.  Massey,  14  S.  C.  292. 

Tennessee. —  Renshaw  L\  TuUahoma  First 
Xat.  Bank,  (Ch.  App.  1900)  63  S.  W. 
194,  holding  that  a  tenant  in  common  claim- 
ing ownership  of  the  entire  property  as 
against  the  cotenant  and  taking  exclusive 
possession,  must  account  for  rents  received 
during  the  period  of  exclusion  in  excess  of 
the  increased  value  of  the  premises  due  to 
his  improvement. 

Tenas. — 'Autry  v.  Reasor,  102  Tex.  123,  108 
S.  W.  1162,  113  S.  W.  748;  Duke  v.  Reed,  64 
Tex.  705;  Osborn  v.  Osborn,  62  Tex.  495; 
Stephens  c.  Hewitt,  (Civ.  App.  1903)  77 
S.  W.  229;  Eastham  v.  Sims,  11  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  133,  32  S.  W.  359. 

Vermont. —  Hayden  v.  Merrill,  44  Vt.  336, 
8  Am.  Rep.  372. 

West  Virginia. —  Cecil  v.  Clark,  49  W.  Va. 
459,  39  S.  E.  202  (holding  that  possession 
having  been  taken  of  a  coal  mine  by  one 
tenant  in  common  thereof  to  the  exclusion 
of  his  cotenants  and  the  mine  having  been 
leased  to  a  third  party  under  a  royalty,  the  ex- 
cluded cotenant  might  require  an  accounting 
to  him  for  his  just  proportion  of  such  roy- 
alty as  the  proper  measure  of  damages  after 
such  waste)  ;  Williamson  v.  Jones,  43  W.  Va. 
562,  27  S.  E.  411,  64  Am.  St.  Rep.  891,  38 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc]     67 


the  property  be  such  as  not  to  admit  of  its  use  and  occupation  by  more  than  one, 
and  it  is  occupied  by  one  of  the  tenants  in  common  only;  or  if,  although  capable 
of  occupation  by  more  than  one,  it  is  yet  so  used  and  occupied  as  in  effect  to 
exclude  the  others,  he  so  occupying  will  be  held  accountable  to  the  others  for 
the  rents  and  profits."  Furthermore,  if  a  tenant  in  common  actually  receives 
more  than  his  share  of  the  rents  and  profits  for  or  on  the  common  property,  or 
some  specific  part  thereof,  such  tenant  is  bound  to  account  therefor  proportion- 
ately to  the  respective  shares  of  his  cotenants,  even  though  his  possession  and 
enjoyment  of  the  common  property  be  non-exclusive  as  to  his  cotenants;  '^  and 


L.  E.  A.  694;  Ward  f.  Ward,  40  W.  Va.  611, 
21  S.  E.  746,  52  Am.  St.  Eep.  911,  29  L.  R.  A. 
449. 

United  States. — McGahan  v.  Eondout  Bank, 
156  U.  S.  218,  15  S.  Ct.  347,  39  L.  ed.  403. 

England. —  Pascoe  f.  Swan,  27  Beav.  508, 
5  Jur.  N.  S.  1235,  29  L.  J.  Ch.  159,  1  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  17,  8  Wkly.  Rep.  130,  54  Eng. 
Reprint  201. 

Gwnada. —  Mcintosh  v.  Ontario  Bank,  19 
Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)   155. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  84  et  seq. 

Compare  Clark  v.  Jones,  49  Cal.  618. 

They  cannot  offset  their  improvements 
against  the  rent  if  they  held  adversely,  even 
believing  in  good  faith  their  own  title  to  be 
the  better.  Bodkin  v.  Arnold,  48  W.  Va. 
108,  35  S.  E.  980. 

The  collection  of  rents  or  profits  is  not  an 
act  of  ouster  in  itself,  but  it  may  amount  to 
an  act  of  ouster  in  connection  with  other 
acts  in  relation  to  the  common  property. 
Morgan  v.  Mitchell,  104  Ga.  596,  30  S.  E. 
792;  Busch  V.  Huston,  75  111.  343;  Eobidoux 
f.  Cassilegi,  10  Mo.  App.  516;  Linker  v.  Benr 
son,  67  N.  C.  150;  Bolton  c.  Hamilton,  2 
Watts  &  S.  (Pa.)  294,  37  Am.  Dec.  509; 
Lagorio  v.  Dozier,  91  Va.  492,  22  S.  E.  239. 
See  also  Moreira  v.  Schwan,  113  La.  643,  37 
So.  542.  And  the  mere  fact  of  a  tenant  in 
common  having  occupied  the  common  prop- 
erty will  not  of  itself  make  him  liable  for  an 
occupation  rent;  for  the  effect  of  such  a  rule 
would  be  that  a  tenant  in  common  by  merely 
keeping  out  of  the  actual  occupation  of  the 
premises  might  convert  his  cotenant  into  his 
bailiff  and  prevent  him  from  occupying  the 
premises,  excepting  upon  the  payment  of 
rent.    Lyles  v.  Lyles,  1  Hill  Eq.  (S.  C.)  76. 

The  non-occupying  cotenants  may  jointly 
or  severally  have  an  account,  not  only  of  the 
rents  received  but  also  of  those  which  would 
have  been  realized  by  prudent  management. 
Chambers  v.  Jones,  72  111.  275. 

A  tenant  of  land  claiming  under  a  tenant 
in  common  adversely  to  other  tenants  in  com- 
mon will,  in  respect  to  rents  and  profits,  be 
treated  as  tenant  in  common  of  the  latter, 
and  hence  will  not  be  charged  with  profits, 
which  he  has  not  received,  if  he  has  acted  in 
good  faith  with  a  view  to  make  the  property 
profitable.  Ruffners  v.  Lewis,  7  Leigh  (Va.) 
720,  30  Am.  Dec.  513. 

A  decree  in  partition  ousting  certain  co- 
tenants  from  possession  being  reversed  on 
appeal  five- years  later  and  the  ousted  co- 
tenants  being  decreed  one  half  of  the  prop- 


erty, a  suit  in  equity  for  an  accounting 
against  the  one  remaining  in  possession  was 
held  to  be  proper.  Bates  v.  Hamilton,  144 
Mo.  1,  45  S.  W.  641,  66  Am.  St.  Rep.  407. 

Where  a  tenant  in  common  solely  operated 
the  common  property  under  a  mistake  of  law 
as  to  his  alleged  superior  title  he  was  held 
to  account  for  the  fair  annual  rental  of  the 
property  with  legal  interest,  less  taxes  paid 
by  him.  Nott  v.  Owen,  86  Me.  98,  29  Atl. 
943,  41  Am.  St.  Eep.  525;  Euflfners  v.  Lewis, 

7  Leigh  (Va.)  720,  30  Am.  Dec.  513;  Bodkin 
V.  Arnold,  48  W.  Va.  108,  35  S.  E.  980. 

A  receiver  may  be  appointed  in  case  of 
ouster  between  cotenants  (Sandford  v.  Bal- 
lard, 33  Beav.  401,  10  Jur.  N.  S.  251,  33 
L.  J.  Ch.  450,  55  Eng.  Reprint  423),  except- 
ing in  cases  where  the  coownership  of  the 
mine  is  really  a  copartnership;  in  which 
event  it  may  be  necessary  to  ask  for  a,  dis- 
solution as  part  of  the  remedy  before  equity 
will  entertain  such  a  bill  (Roberts  t.  Eber- 
hardt,  Kay  148,  23  L.  J.  Ch.  201,  2  Wkly. 
Rep.  125,  69  Eng.  Reprint  63). 

72.  Nebraska. —  Names  v.  Names,  48  Nebr. 
701,  67  N.  W.  751. 

New  Jersey. —  Wickoff  v.  Wickoff,  (Ch. 
1889)  18  Atl.  74;  Izard  v.  Bodine,  11  N.  J. 
Eq.  403,  69  Am.  Dec.  595. 

Rhode  Island. —  Knowles  f.  Harris,  5  R.  I. 
402,  73  Am.  Dec.  77. 

Vermont. —  Hayden  v.  Merrill,  44  Vt.  336, 

8  Am.  Rep.  372. 

Virginia. —  Newman  v.  Newman,  27  Gratt. 
714;  Graham  v.  Pierce,  19  Gratt.  28,  100  Am. 
Dec.  658;  Early  f.  Friend,  16  Gratt.  21,  78 
Am.  Dec.  649. 

Wisconsin. —  McKinley  v.  Weber,  37  Wis. 
279. 

England. —  Pascoe  v.  Swan,  27  Beav.  508, 
5  Jur.  N.  S.  1235,  29  L.  J.  Ch.  159,  1  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  17,  8  Wkly.  Rep.  130,  54  Eng. 
Reprint  201. 

But  only  for  the  time  of  actual  exclusive 
occupation. —  Baylor  o.  Hopf,  81  Tex.  637,  17 
S.  W.  230. 

Where  a  cotenant  had  no  means  of  obtain- 
ing his  just  share  without  at  the  same  time 
taking  that  of  his  cotenants,  it  was  held 
that  the  value  of  the  share  of  his  cotenants 
as  he  found  it  was  a  just  basis  of  account. 
Coleman's  Appeal,  62  Pa.  St.  252. 

73.  Alabama. —  McCaw  v.  Barker,  115  Ala. 
543,  22  So.  131;  Pope  v.  Harkins,  16  Ala. 
321. 

California. —  Abel  v.  Love,  17  Cal.  233. 
Georgia.—  Shiels  v.  Stark,  14  Ga.  429. 
Illinois. —  Regan  v.  Regan,  192  111.  589,  61 

[III,  F,  2,  a] 


68    [38  CycJ  TENANCY  IN  COMMON 

it  is  immaterial  that  said  rents  or  profits  so  received  accrued  from  a  portion  of  the 


N.  E.  842;  Woolley  v.  Schrader,  116  111.  29, 
4  N.  E.  658,  under  1  Starr  &  C.  c.  2,  §  2, 
cl.  1. 

Indiana. —  Sohissel  v.  Dickson,  129'  Ind. 
139,  28  N.  E.  540,  under  Rev.  St.  (1881) 
§  288. 

Iowa. —  German  v.  Heath,  139  Iowa  52, 
116  N.  W.  1051. 

Maine. — •  Cutler  v.  Currier,  54  Me.  81,  un- 
der St.   (1848)   e.  61,  §  1. 

Massachusetts. —  Peclc  v.  Carpenter,  7  Gray 
283,  66  Am.  Dec.  477;  Sargent  v.  Parsons, 
12  Mass.  149. 

Michigan. —  Eighmey  v.  Thayer,  135  Mich. 
682,  98  N.  W.  734,  66  L.  E.  A.  915,  holding 
that  a  tenant  in  common  receiving  the  rents 
and  profits  is  bound  to  account  to  his  co- 
tenants  therefor,  although  ignorant  of  their 
title,  and  although  he  expended  them  in  sup- 
porting his  grantor  according  to  contract  with 
him. 

Montana. —  Ayotte  v.  Nadeau,  32  Mont. 
498,  81  Pac.  145. 

Keio  Hampshire. —  Gage  v.  Gage,  66  N.  H. 
282,  29  Atl.  543,  28  L.  E.  A.  829,  holding 
the  obligation  to  so  account  to  be  part  of  the 
community  of  duty  produced  by  the  commu- 
nity of  interest. 

Xew  Jersey. —  Lloyd  r.  Turner,  70  N.  J. 
Eq.  425,  62  Atl.  771;  Buckelew  r.  Snedeker, 
27  N.  J.  Eq.  82. 

ft'eic  York.—  Clark  v.  Piatt,  39  N.  Y.  App. 
Div.  670,  58  N.  Y.  Suppl.  361;  Gedney  f.  Ged- 
ney,  19  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  407,  46  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
590  [affirmed  in  160  N.  Y.  471,  55  N.  E.  1] 
(where  an  agreement  having  been  made  be- 
tween tenants  in  common,  each  owning  one 
half  of  the  real  property,  that  eacli  should 
collect  one  half  of  the  rents,  one  of  them 
having  collected  more  than  one  half  of  the 
rents  was  held  liable  to  the  other)  ;  Eose- 
boom  t.  Roseboom,  15  Hun  309  [affirmed  in 
81  N.  Y.  356];  Wright  v.  Wright,  59  How. 
Pr.  176. 

North  Carolina. —  Northcot  v.  Casper,  41 
N.  C.  303. 

Pennsylvania. —  Keisel  v.  Earnest,  21  Pa. 
St.  90. 

Rhode  Island. —  White  r.  Eddy,  19  E.  I. 
108,  31  Atl.  823;  Hazard  v.  Albro,  17  E.  I. 
181,  20  Atl.  834;  Almy  v.  Daniels,  15 
E.  I.  312,  4  Atl.  753,  10  Atl.  654. 

South  Carolina. —  Pearson  v.  Carlton,  18 
S.  C.  47. 

Tennessee. —  Eenshaw  r.  Tullahoma  First 
Nat.  Bank,   (Ch.  App.,  1900)  63  S.  W.  194. 

Texas. —  Logan  v.  Eobertson,  ( Civ.  App. 
1904)   83  S.  W.  395. 

Virginia. —  Early  v.  Friend,  16  Gratt.  21, 
78  Am.  Dec.  649. 

West  Virginia. —  Cecil  v.  Clark,  49  W.  Va. 
459,  39  S.  E.  202. 

England.—  Clegg  v.  Clegg,  3  Giffard  322,  S 
Jur.  N.  S.  92,  31  L.  J.  Ch.  153,  5  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  441,  10  Wkly.  Eep.  75,  66  Eng.  Reprint 
433. 

Canada. —  Re  Kirkpatrick,  10  Ont.  Pr.  4; 
Eice  V.  George,  20  Grant  Ch.   (U.  C.)   221. 

[III.  F,  2,  a] 


See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  83  et  seq. 

Mines  and  minerals. —  A  tenant  in  common 
quarrying  and  removing,  or  removing  min- 
erals or  other  products  of  mines  or  wells 
from  the  common  property,  thereby  becomes 
liable  to  account  to  his  cotenants  for  their 
damages  and  profits,  if  any,  of  the  transac- 
tions, according  to  their  proportionate  shares 
thereof.  McCord  v.  Oakland  Quicksilver  Min. 
Co.,  64  Cal.  134,  27  Pac.  863,  49  Am.  Eep. 
686;  Murley  v.  Ennis,  2  Colo.  300;  Huff  f. 
McDonald,  22  Ga.  131,  68  Am.  Dec.  487; 
Richardson  v.  Richardson,  72  Me.  403 ;  Childs 
f.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  117  Mo.  414,  23 
S.  W.  373;  Gregg  t.  Roaring  Springs  Land, 
etc.,  Co.,  97  Mo.  App.  44,  70  S.  W.  920;  Smith 
r.  Woodman,  28  N.  H.  520;  Switzer  v.  Swit- 
zer,  57  N.  J.  Eq.  421,  41  Atl.  486;  Abbey  v. 
Wheeler,  170  N.  Y.  122,  62  K  E.  1074;  Cos- 
griff  v.  Dewey,  21  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  129,  47 
N.  Y.  Suppl.  255  [affirmed  in  164  N.  Y.  1,  58 
N.  E.  1,  79  Am.  St.  Eep.  620] ;  St.  John  v. 
Coates,  63  Hun  (N.  Y.)  460,  18  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
419  [affirmed  in  140  N.  Y.  634,  35  N.  E. 
891] ;  Johnston  v.  Price,  172  Pa.  St.  427,  33 
Atl.  688;  Winton  Coal  Co.  f.  Pancoast  Coal 
Co.,  170  Pa.  St.  437,  33  Atl.  110;  Given  v. 
Kelly,  85  Pa.  St.  309;  Irvine  i.  Hanlin,  10 
Serg.  &  E.  (Pa.)  219;  Cecil  f.  Clark,  44 
W.  Va.  659,  30  S.  E.  216;  Williamson  v. 
Jones,  43  W.  Va.  562,  27  S.  E.  411,  64  Am. 
St.  Eep.  891,  38  L.  E.  A.  694;  McDodrill  v. 
Pardee,  etc..  Lumber  Co.,  40  W.  Va.  564,  21 
S.  E.  878;  Clegg  I.  Clegg,  3  Giffard  322,  8 
Jur.  N.  S.  92,  31  L.  J.  Ch.  153,  5  L.  T.  Eep. 
N.  S.  441,  10  Wkly.  Eep.  75,  66  Eng.  Reprint 
433;  Denys  v.  Shuckburgh,  5  Jur.  21,  4 
Y.  &  C.  Exch.  42;  Curtis  v.  Coleman,  22 
Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  561;  Goodenow  v.  Far- 
quhar,  19  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  614.  And  tlie 
one  leasing  the  common  property  is  only  en- 
titled to  his  proportionate  share  of  the  rents 
and  profits  thereof.  Barnum  v.  Landon,  25 
Conn.  137.  If  there  be  no  damage  to  the 
interests  of  the  respective  cotenants,  and  if 
they  have  no  interests  in  the  profits  arising 
from  the  operation  of  the  common  property 
by  one  cotenant,  then  they  cannot  charge  the 
operating  cotenant  therefor  in  an  accounting. 
Clark  v.  Jones,  49  Cal.  618;  Cosgriff  f.  Dewey, 
21  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  129,  47  N.  Y.  Suppl.  255 
[affirmed  in  164  N.  Y.  1,  58  N.  E.  1,  79  Am. 
St.  Rep.  620]. 

In  Pennsylvania,  under  the  act  of  June  24, 
1895  (Pamphl.  Laws  237),  payment  of  rent 
by  one  tenant  in  common  to  the  others  may 
be  settled  in  a  partition  proceeding.  Heft's 
Estate,  9  Kulp  337. 

The  cotenant  must  have  received  more 
than  his  share,  not  merely  on  a  single  article, 
but  of  the  entire  profits  of  the  estate,  after 
deducting  all  reasonable  charges;  and  in  an 
action  against  him  therefor,  it  must  appear 
that  the  balance  is  due  to  plaintiff  in  said 
action,  not  to  the  other  cotenants;  and  the 
same  rule  applies  as  to  contribution  for  ex- 
penditures.    Gowen    v.    Shaw,    40    Me.    56; 


TENAISOY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc.J     69 


common  property  or  a  partial  use  thereof,  instead  of  all,'^  or  whether  or  not  the 
production  of  rents  or  profits  was  caused  by  the  acts  of  such  occupying  tenant,'^ 
and  where  an  arrangement  has  been  made  between  cotenants,  merely  for  con- 
venience, that  each  shall  collect  his  proportionate  part  of  the  rents,  there  is  no 
estoppel  on  the  part  of  either  of  them  to  claim  his  share  of  excess  collected  by 
the  other.'"    But  if  a  tenant  in  common  receives  rent,  income,  or  profits  from  a 


Hardy  f.  Sprowl,  33  Me.  508;  Shepard  v. 
Eichards,  2  Gray  (Mass.)  424,  61  Am.  Dec. 
473. 

If  a  proper  set-off  be  declared,  and  it  is 
found  that  plaintiff's  share  is  insufficient  to 
satisfy  such  a  set-oflF,  defendant  should  he 
allowed  judgment  for  the  excess.  Dewing  t. 
Dewing,  165  Mass.  230,  42  N.  E.  1128. 

Kent  paid  in  permanent  improvements  on 
the  land  is  not  chargeable  as  profits  received 
by  the  cotenant.  Hannan  f.  Osborn,  4  Paige 
(N.  Y.)  336;  Walker  f.  Humbert,  55  Pa.  St. 
407. 

The  grantee  of  the  interest  of  one  tenant 
in  common  must  account  for  the  income  of 
so  much  of  the  common  property  as  was 
productive  at  the  time  of  his  purchase  and 
taking  possession,  even  though  it  was  ren^ 
dered  productive  by  the  occupying  cotenant 
of  whom  he  purchased.  Hancock  v.  Day, 
McMuU.  Eq.  (S.  C.)   69,  36  Am.  Dec.  293. 

A  mortgagee  in  possession  of  the  common 
property  by  virtue  of  a  mortgage  given  by 
one  tenant  in  common  is  in  no  better  position 
than  his  grantor,  and  therefore  he  is  ac- 
countable to  the  other  cotenants  for  the  in- 
come in  his  hands  before  any  application  can 
be  made  thereof  to  the  mortgage.  Fuher  v. 
Buckeye  Supply  Co.,  5  Ohio  S.  &  C.  PI.  Dec. 
187,  7  Ohio  N.  P.  420.  See  also  Mcintosh  v. 
Ontario  Bank,  19  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)   155. 

Tenants  in  common  may  each  maintain  a 
separate  action  for  their  respective  shares  of 
the  excess  of  rents  and  profits  received  by 
virtue  or  under  claim  of  the  cotenancy. 
Smith  V.  Wiley,  22  Ala.  396,  58  Am.  Dec. 
262;  Barnum  v.  Landon,  25  Conn.  137. 

Where  a  tenant  in  common  gives  credit 
for  the  rental  or  sale  of  the  property  under 
circumstances  where  he  should  have  demanded 
cash,  he  will  be  chargeable  as  though  he  had 
received  cash  in  the  premises.  Hammer  u. 
Johnson,  44  111.  192;  Denys  %.  Shuckburgh, 
5  Jur.  21,  4  Y.  &  C.  Exch.  42. 

If  insurance  money  be  paid  to  a  tenant  in 
common  who  has  insured  solely  for  his  own 
benefit,  without  any  interference  with  the 
rights  of  his  cotenants,  the  tenant  insuring 
is  entitled  to  appropriate  the  insurance  money 
to  his  own  benefit.  Mcintosh  v.  Ontario 
Bank,  20  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  24.  But  if  it  be 
apparent  that  the  insurance  was  for  the  com- 
mon benefit  he  must  account  therefor.  Starks 
V.  Sikes,  8  Gray  (Mass.)  609,  69  Am.  Dec. 
270;  Briggs  v.  Call,  5  Mete.  (Mass.)  504. 
Conversely,  he  is  not  entitled  to  contribution 
for  insurance  money  paid  by  him  in  the  ab- 
sence of  a  showing  that  such  payment  was 
for  the  common  benefit.  Farrand  V.  Gleason, 
56  Vt.  633. 

The  widow  of  a  tenant  in  common  of  real 
estate  cannot  be  charged  with   amounts   re- 


ceived by  him,  he  having  in  his  lifetime  re- 
ceived an  undue  share  of  the  rents  and  profits 
of  the  common  estate,  and  died  after  the 
filing  of  a  bill  for  an  accounting  against  liim. 
Allen  t.  Bayliss,  2  MacArthur  (D.  C.) 
180. 

Liability  of  heir. —  An  action  of  account 
by  a  tenant  in  common  for  rents  collected 
by  the  heirs'  common  ancestor  during  his 
lifetime  should  not  be  entertained,  although 
an  action  for  rents  collected  by  the  heirs 
would  lie.  Brittinum  v.  Jones,  56  Ark.  624, 
20  S.  W.  520.  In  the  absence  of  statute  or 
agreement  to  the  contrary,  claims  and  judg- 
ments against  a  decedent's  estate  should  not 
be  charged  in  an  accounting  between  heirs 
of  said  decedent,  even  though  the  administra- 
tor of  said  estate  be  a  tenant  in  common  with 
such  heirs;  because  such  claims  and  judg- 
ments are  properly  chargeable  against  the 
estate  in  the  hands  of  the  administrator  and 
not  against  heirs.  Havey  v.  Kelleher,  36 
N.  Y.  App.  Div.  201,  56  N.  Y.  Suppl.  889. 

Where  a  statute  provides  for  a  measure 
of  damages  arising  out  of  sole  occupation 
of  property,  such  statute  is  enforceable. 
Knowles  v.  Harris,  5  R.  I.  402,  73  Am.  Deo. 
77. 

74.  Wickoff  1-.  Wickofli,  (N.  J.  Ch.  1889) 
18  Atl.  74;  Joslyn  v.  Joslyn,  9  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
388;  Hobnes  f.  Best,  58  Vt.  547,  5  Atl.  385, 
so  holding  even  though  the  portion  so  rented 
does  not  exceed  the  portion  that  such  lessor 
would  be  entitled  to  on  partition.  But  see 
Scantlin  f.  Allison,  32  Kan.  376,  4  Pac.  618; 
Eagan  r.  McCoy,  29  Mo.  356. 

7.5.  Stephens  v.  Taylor,  (Tex.  Civ.  App. 
1896)   36  S.  W.  1083. 

Damages  recovered  by  one  tenant  in  com- 
mon in  trespass  in  relation  to  the  common 
property  inure  to  the  benefit  of  his  cotenants 
and  they  can  compel  an  accounting.  Becnel 
V.  Waguespack,  40  La.  Ann.  109,  3  So.  536. 

What  the  leasehold  would  be  worth  in  the 
open  market  is  the  proper  test  to  determine 
whether  one  has  received  more  than  an  equal 
share,  and  where  the  sole  issue  is  the  assess- 
ment of  a  proper  rent,  it  is  immaterial  what 
elements  may  have  contributed  to  the  iiu- 
crease  of  rental  value.  Shiels  f.  Stark,  14 
Ga.  429.  See  also  McCrum  y.  McCrum,  36 
Ind.  App.  636,  76  N.  E.  415.  Proof  that  in- 
crease in  rental  value  of  the  common  prop- 
erty was  due  to  improvements  made  by  de- 
fendant, where  there  is  no  offer  to  prove  the 
amount  of  such  increase,  is  immaterial.  Wal- 
ter V.  Greenwood,  29  Minn.  87,  12  N.  W. 
145. 

76.  Feniton  v.  Miller,  116  Mich.  45,  74 
N.  W.  384,  72  Am.  St.  Rep.  502;  Switzer  V. 
Switzer,  57  N.  J.  Eq.  421,  14  Atl.  486;  Gedney 
f.  Gedney,  160  N.  Y.  471,  55  N.  E.  1. 

[Ill,  F,  2,  a] 


ro     [38  Cyc] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


third  person  in  excess  of  his  share,  in  good  faith,  he  is  generally  held  liable  to 
account  therefor  only  for  what  he  has  actually  received  more  than  his  just  share 
or  proportion,  and  not  for  the  rental  value  of  the  property  or  what  he  might  have 
received,"  and  if  the  occupying  cotenant  merely  occupies  the  common  land  with- 


77.  Alabama. —  McCaw  v.  Barker,  115  Ala. 
643,  22  So.  131. 

California. —  Howard  v.  Throckmorton,  59 
Cal.  79;  Abel  v.  Love,  17  Cal.  233. 

Connecticut. —  Barnuin  r.  Landon,  25  Conn. 
137. 

Georgia. —  Huff  v.  McDonald,  22  Ga.  131, 
68  Am.  Dec.  487. 

Illinois. —  Regan  v.  Regan,  192  111.  589,  61 
N.  E.  842;  Stenger  v.  Edwards,  70  111.  631; 
Cheney  v.  Ricks,  87  111.  App.  388  laffirmed 
In  187  111.  171,  58  N.  E.  234]. 

loica. —  Van  Ormer  c.  Harley,  102  Iowa 
150,  71  N.  W.  241;  Reynolds  v.  Wilmeth,  45 
Iowa  693. 

Kentucky. —  Talbott  v.  Todd,  5  Dana  190; 
Hixon  1-.  Bridges,  38  S.  W.  1046,  18  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  1068. 

Maryland. —  Hamilton  !;.  Conine,  28  Md. 
635,  92  Am.  Dec.  724. 

Massachusetts. —  Dewing  t.  Dewing,  165 
Mass.  230,  42  N.  E.  1128;  Mayhew  f.  Durfee, 
138  Mass.  584;  Shepard  v.  Richards,  2  Gray 
424,  61  Am.  Dec.  473. 

Michigan. —  Miner  v.  Lorman,  70  Mich.  173, 
38  X.  W.  18;  Fuller  v.  Sweet,  30  Mich.  237, 
18  Am.  Rep.  122. 

Missouri. —  Bates  f.  Hamilton,  144  Mo.  1, 
45  S.  W.  641,  66  Am.  St.  Rep.  407. 

Sew  Jersey. —  Barrell  i'.  Barrcll,  25  N.  J. 
Eq.   173. 

'New  York. —  Adams  v.  Bristol,  126  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  660,  111  N.  Y.  Suppl.  231;  Clark 
f.  Piatt,  39  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  670,  58  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  361;  Roseboom  v.  Roseboom,  15  Hun 
309  [affirmed  in  81  N.  Y.  356] ;  'Dresser  v. 
Dresser,  40  Barb.  300;  Woolever  r.  Knapp, 
18  Barb.  265;  JIatter  of  Lucy,  4  Misc.  349, 
24  N.  Y.  Suppl.  352;  Wright  v.  Wright,  59 
How.  Pr.  176;  Burrell  v.  Bull,  3  Sandf.  Ch. 
15. 

North  Carolina. —  Northcot  v.  Casper,  41 
N.    C.   303. 

Pennsylvania. —  North  Pennsylvania  Coal 
Co.  i\  Snowden,  42  Pa.  St.  488,  82  Am.  Dec. 
530;  Keisel  v.  Earnest,  21  Pa.  St.  90;  Jevons 
v.  Kline,  9  Kulp  305. 

Rhode  Island.— White  v.  Eddy,  19  R.  I. 
108,  31  Atl.  823;  Almy  v.  Daniels,  15  R.  I. 
312,  4  Atl.  753,  10  Atl.  654. 

South  Carolina.—  Griffin  v.  Griffin,  82  S.  C. 
256,  64  S.  E.  160;  Cain  v.  Cain,  53  S.  C. 
350,  31  S.  E.  278,  69  Am.  St.  Rep.  863; 
Pearson  v.  Carlton,  18  S.  C.  47;  Jones  v. 
Massey,  14  S.  C.  292;  Volentine  v.  Johnson, 
1  Hill  Eq.  49. 

Tennessee. —  Renshaw  v.  Tullahoma  First 
Nat.  Bank,    (Ch.  App.   1900)    63  S.  W.   194. 

Texas. —  Mahon  v.  Barnett,  (Civ.  App. 
1897)  45  S.  W.  24;  Gillum  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  622,  23  S.  W. 
716. 

Vermont. —  Hayden  f.  Merrill,  44  Vt.  336, 
8  Am.  Rep.  372. 

Virginia. —  Moorman  v.   Smoot,  28    Gratt. 

[Ill,  F.  2,  a] 


80;  Early  v.  Friend,  16  Gratt.  21,  78  Am. 
Dec.  649;  Ruflners  v.  Lewis,  7  Leigh  720,  30 
Am.  Dec.  513. 

West  Virginia.— Cecil  v.  Clark,  49  W.  Va. 
459,  39  S.  E.  202;  Williamson  v.  Jones,  43 
W.  Va.  562,  27  S.  E.  411,  64  Am.  St.  Rep. 
891,  38  L.  R.  A.  694;  Ward  v.  Ward,  40 
W.  Va.  611,  21  S.  E.  746,  52  Am.  St.  Rep. 
911,  29  L.  R.  A.  449. 

United  States. —  McGahan  v.  Rondout  Nat. 
Bank,  156  U.  S.  218,  15  S.  Ct.  347,  39  L.  ed. 
403;  Dangerfield  i:  Caldwell,  151  Fed.  554, 
81  C.  C.  A.  400. 

England. —  Henderson  v.  Eason,  17  Q.  B. 
701,  16  Jur.  518,  21  L.  J.  Q.  B.  82,  79  E.  C.  L. 
701;  Beer  v.  Beer,  12  C.  B.  60,  16  Jur. 
223,  21  L.  J.  C.  P.  124,  74  E.  C.  L.  60; 
Montgomery  v.  Swan,  9  Ir.  Ch.  131;  Leake 
i\  Cordeaux,  4  Wkly.  Rep.  806. 

Canada. —  Re  Kirkpatrick,  10  Ont.  Pr.  4; 
Curtis  V.  Coleman,  22  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.) 
561;  Mcintosh  v.  Ontario  Bank,  20  Grant 
Ch.  (U.  C.)  24;  Goodenow  v.  Farquhar,  19 
Grant  Ch.   (U.  C.)    614. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  83  et  seq. 

See  also  note  to  Gage  v.  Gage,  28  L.  R.  A. 
829. 

The  burden  is  upon  plaintiff  to  show  the 
net  amount  of  rent  received.  Gowen  v. 
Shaw,  40  Me.  56;  Joslyn  v.  Joslyn,  9  Hun 
(N.  Y.)  388.  The  proving  of  contracts  of 
rent  iixing  the  amount  to  be  paid  to  de- 
fendant prima  facie  meets  said  Durden  and 
shifts  the  onus  of  proving  what  he  did  not 
receive  upon  defendant.  Tarleton  v.  Gold- 
thwaite,  23  Ala.  346,  58  Am.  Dec.  296. 

Pasturage. —  Under  a  statute  that  recovery 
may  be  had  for  rents  and  profits  received 
from  the  common  estate  "  according  to  the 
justice  and  equity  of  the  case,"  it  is  held 
that  recovery  might  be  had  for  pasturage. 
West  V.  Weyer,  46  Ohio  St.  66,  18  N.  E. 
537,  15  Am.  St.  Rep.  552. 

Duty  to  keep  accounts. —  If  a  tenant  in 
common  is  in  a  position  where  he  may  be  re- 
quired to  account,  it  is  his  duty  to  keep  ac- 
curate accounts  of  his  income,  expenses,  and 
receipts;  and  upon  failing  to  do  so  his  co- 
tenants  will  be  entitled  to  prove  such  items 
by  expert  testimony,  or  the  amount  of  rent 
to  be  charged  by  evidence  of  the  rental  value 
of  the  common  property.  McCaw  r.  Barker, 
115  Ala.  543,  22  So.  131;  Bovee  v.  Boyce, 
124  Mich.  696,  83  N.  W.  10"l3 ;  Bates  r. 
Hamilton,  144  Mo.  1,  45  S.  W.  641,  66  Am. 
St.  Rep.  407;  Cain  t\  Cain,  53  S.  C.  350, 
31  S.  E.  278,  69  Am.  St.  Rep.  863.  Partial 
accounts  stated  and  rendered  to  each  other 
are  inadmissible,  unless  the  litigant  so  offer- 
ing said  account  will  consent  to  open  the 
whole  state  of  accounts  between  the  parties. 
Prentiss  r.  Roberts,  49  Me.  127.  In  the  ab- 
sence of  statute  or  rule  to  the  contrary,  or 
of   objection  properly   made,   vouchers   with 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cye.J     71 


but  any  ouster  of  his  fellows  he  should,  if  liable  for  rent,  be  charged  only  with 
rent  for  so  much  of  the  land  as  was  capable  of  producing  rent  when  he  took  pos- 
session, and  he  should  neither  be  charged  with  rent  for  the  land  rendered  pro- 
ductive by  him  nor  is  he  entitled  to  allowance  for  improvements." 

b.  Interest;  Costs.  A  tenant  in  common  coming  into  possession  of  more 
than  his  just  share  and  proportion  of  the  rents,  income,  or  profits,  is  not,  in  the 
absence  of  some  wrongful  conduct  on  his  part  in  regard  thereto,  chargeable  with 
interest  on  the  shares  of  his  cotenants."  The  rule  is  otherwise  if  the  withholding 
is  wrongful,  as  where  the  cotenant  holds  adversely,  or  after  demand  and  refusal;  *° 
and  a  cotenant  holding  adversely  may  be  liable  for  the  interest  on  the  income, 
rents,  and  profits  collected  and  withheld,  although  he  has  received  no  such 
interest."  A  tenant  in  common  wrongfully  failing  to  account  is  usually  personally 
liable  for  the  costs  incurred  in  an  action  at  law  or  in  equity.'^ 


the  usual  affidavit  of  verification  are  suffl- 
oient  prima  facie  proof  of  the  matt<»is  in 
issues  therein  contained.  In  re  Curry,  25 
Ont.  App.  267  [affirming  17  Ont.  Pr.  379]. 

Claim  of  cotenant  personal. —  The  share 
of  such  tenant  in  common  in  the  income  of 
the  common  property  is  a  debt  due  to  him- 
self from  the  cotenant  who  receives  such  in- 
come and  does  not  pass  to  his  grantee  upon 
the  sale  of  his  interest  in  the  premises,  or 
to  his  devisee  or  heir  at  law  upon  his  death. 
Hannan  u.  Osborn,  4  Paige  (N.  Y.)  336. 
But  if,  pending  a,  suit  by  several  alleged 
tenants  in  common  against  a  cotenant  for 
establishment  of  title  and  rents,  one  of 
plaintiffs  quitclaims  to  the  other,  the  rents 
due  to  the  former  pass  to  the  latter.  La 
Master  v.  Dickson,  17  Tex.  Civ.  App.  473,  43 
S.  W.  911. 

The  lessee  of  the  interest  of  one  tenant  in 
common,  occupying  the  whole  estate  and  not 
attorning  to  the  other  tenants  in  common, 
to  whose  occupation  of  said  estate  he  has 
never  objected,  is  in  the  same  position  as 
his  lessor.  Badger  v.  Holmes,  6  Gray  (Mass.) 
118. 

Where  an  estate  is  divided  between  three 
devisees,  one  of  whom  receives  designated 
realty,  on  which  he  enters  and  enjoys  the 
rents  and  profits,  and  all  three  are  tenants 
in  common  in  the  remainder  in  certain  pro- 
portions, the  income  from  the  remainder 
should  be  divided  among  the  three  in  pro- 
portion to  their  shares  as  tenants  in  com- 
mon. Moseley  v.  Bolster,  201  Mass.  135,  87 
N.  E.  606. 

78.  Shiels  v.  Stark,  14  Ga.  429;  Carver  v. 
Fennimore,  116  Ind.  236,  19  N.  E.  103;  Han- 
cock V.  Day,  McMull.  Eq.  (S.  C.)  298 ;  Thomp- 
son V.  Bostick,  McMull.  Eq.  (S.  C.)  75.  See 
Baylor  v.  Hopf,  81  Tex.  637,  17  S.  W.  230. 

The  true  measure  of  damages  is  based  on 
the  idea  of  compensation  for  the  actual  loss 
sustained  by  plaintiff  in  being  deprived  of 
the  use  of  his  possession.  Even  though  de- 
fendant, with  knowledge  of  plaintiff's  title, 
actually  believed  that  he,  defendant,  had  the 
better  title,  such  holding  could  not  be  called 
lona  fide,  because  it  arose  from  ignorance  of 
the  law,  and  not  from  ignorance  of  the  fact. 
Bodkin  V.  Arnold,  48  W.  Va.  108,  35  S.  E. 
980. 

79.  Chene)    v.    Kicks,    87    111.    App.    388 


[affirmed  in  187  111.  171,  58  N.  E.  234], 
where  he  was  awaiting  the  determination  of 
an   adverse  claim. 

80.  Alabama. —  Tarleton  v.  Goldthwaite, 
23  Ala.  346,  58  Am.  Dec.  296. 

Kentucky. —  Barnes  v.  Barnes,  72  S.  W. 
282,  24  Ky.  L.  Rep.   1732. 

Missouri. —  Bates  v.  Hamilton,  144  Mo.  1, 
45  S.  W.  641,  66  Am.  St.  Rep.  407. 

New  York. —  Scott  v.  Guernsey,  60  Barb. 
163   [affirmed  in  48  N.  Y.  106]. 

Worth  Carolina. —  Jolly  v.  Bryan,  86  N.  0. 
457. 

Pennsylvania. —  Sieger  v.  Sieger,  209  Pa. 
St.  65,  58  Atl.  140  (interest  charged  from 
the  time  when  money  should  have  been  paid 
over  after  allowing  a  reasonable  time  for 
settlement)  ;  McGowan  v.  Bailey,  179  Pa. 
St.  470,  36  Atl.  325. 

Virginia. —  Early  V.  Friend,  16  Gratt.  21, 
78  Am.  Dec.  649. 

We-it  Virginia. —  Vance  v.  Evans,  11  W. 
Va.  342. 

81.  Bates  v.  Hamilton,  144  Mo.  1,  45  S.  W. 
641,  66  Am.  St.  Rep.  407;  Armijo  v.  Neher, 
11  N.  M.  645,  72  Pac.  12;  White  i".  Eddy, 
19  R.  I.  108,  31  Atl.  823. 

Where  a  statute  provided  that  a  tenant  in 
common  platting  the  common  lands  and  pay- 
ing taxes  thereon  should  receive  certain 
moneys,  and  one  of  the  cotenants  so  platted 
the  lands  and  paid  the  taxes  and  received 
the  moneys  he  was  not  liable  to  his  co- 
tenant  for  any  part  of  the  moneys  so  re- 
ceived.    Howard  c.  Donahue,  60  Cal.  264. 

One  in  possession  of  common  land  believ- 
ing himself  to  be  the  sole  owner  is  not  en- 
titled to  be  reimbursed  for  a  proportionate 
share  of  the  cost  of  substantial  and  valuable 
improvements  made  thereon  by  him;  he  may 
only  reimburse  himself  out  of  rents  and 
profits  received.  Gregg  v.  Patterson,  9 
Watts  &  S.    (Pa.)    197. 

Demand  unnecessary.— Where  a  tenant 
in  common  retains  the  portion  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  common  property  to  which  his 
cotenant  is  entitled,  for  an  unreasonable 
time,  he  is  chargeable  with  interest,  although 
no  demand  has  been  made  for  such  portion. 
McGowan  v.  Bailey,  179  Pa.  St.  470,  36  Atl. 
325. 

83.  Croasdale  t:  Von  Boyneburgk,  206  Pa. 
St.  15,  55  Atl.  770. 

[Ill,  F,  2.  b] 


72      [38  Cye.J 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


e.  Lien.  The  claim  of  one  tenant  in  common  against  his  cotenant  for  rent, 
income,  or  profits  being  only  a  personal  charge,*^  it  is  generally  held  that  no  lien 
attaches  to  the  interest  of  a  cotenant  in  the  common  property  for  income,  rents, 
and  profits  collected  by  such  cotenant;  "  and  no  such  lien  attaches  as  against  a 
hona  fide  purchaser  of  the  interest  of  such  cotenant.*^  In  some  cases,  however, 
an  equitable  lien  is  recognized,*^  which  is  superior  to  a  claim  of  general  creditors,*' 
but  inferior  to  a  deed  of  trust  to  secure  a  vendor's  lien.**  But  even  where  such 
a  claim  is  called  an  equitable  lien,  it  is  nevertheless  held  that  it  is  only  a  personal 
charge  upon  the  debtor  tenant.*'  A  statute  giving  a  lien  for  rent  on  growing 
crops  in  possession  of  a  lessee  has  no  application  to  crops  belonging  to  a  cotenant 
in  possession  by  \drtue  of  such  cotenancy.'" 

G.  Agreements  and  Conveyances  Between  Cotenants.  Tenants  in 
common  may  contract  with  each  other  concerniag  the  use  of  the  common  prop- 
erty,'^ and  agreements  between  them,  their  heirs,  personal  representatives,  and 


83.  Pape  v.  Schofield,  77  Hun  (X.  Y.) 
236,  28  X.  Y.  Suppl.  340  [affirmed  in  145 
X.  Y.  598,  40  X"^.  E.   164]. 

84.  Alaiama. —  Newbold  -v.  Smart,  67  Ala. 
326. 

Arkansas. —  Dunavant  v.  Fields,  68  Ark. 
534,  60  S.  W.  420;  JIcKneely  i:  Terry,  61 
Ark.  527,  33  S.  TT.  953;  Brittinum  v.  Jones, 
56  Ark.  624,  20  S.  W.  520 ;  Hamby  i\  Wall, 
48  Ark.  135,  2  S.  W.  705,  3  Am.  St.  Kep. 
218;   Bertrand  f.  Tavlor,  32  Ark.  470. 

Georgia.— Fo^e  t. 'Tift,  69  Ga.  741. 

Illinois. —  Stenger  v.  Edwards,  70  111.  631. 

Maryland. —  Flack  v.  Gosnell,  76  ild.  88, 
24  Atl.  414,  35  Am.  St.  Eep.  413,  16  L.  E.  A. 
547. 

Mississippi. —  Burns  r.  Dreyfus,  69  Miss. 
211,  11  So.  107,  30  Am.  St.  Rep.  539. 

Yeto  York. —  See  Scott  r.  Guernsey,  60 
Barb.  163  [affirmed  in  48  X.  Y'.  106]. 

South  Carolina. —  Vaughan  v.  Lanford,  81 
S.  C.  282,  62  S.  E.  316,  128  Am.  St.  Rep. 
912;  Cain  v.  Cain.  53  S.  C.  350,  31  S.  E. 
278,  69  Am.  St.  Rep.   863. 

Teatas.— Kalteyer  i\  Wipff,  92  Tex.  673, 
52  S.  W.  63;  La  Master  v.  Dickson,  17  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  473,  43  S.  W.  911. 

West  Virginia. —  Williamson  r.  Jones,  43 
W.  Va.  562,  27  S.  E.  411,  64  Am.  St.  Rep. 
891,  38  L.  R.  A.  694. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon,"   §§    81,   87. 

85.  Flack  r.  Gosnell,  76  JId.  88,  24  Atl. 
414,  35  Am.  St.  Rep.  413,  16  L.  R.  A.  547; 
Burns  i\  Dreyfus,  69  Miss.  211,  11  So.  107, 
30  Am.  St.  Rep.  539.  See  also  Beck  i:  Kall- 
mever,  42  Mo.  App.  563. 

86.  Pitman  r.  Smith,  135  X'.  Y.  App.  Div. 
904,  120  X.  Y.  Suppl.  193;  Wriglit  r.  Wright, 
59  How.  Pr.  (X.  Y.)  176;  Flach  v.  Zander- 
son,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1905)  91  S.  W.  348. 
See  Pape  v.  Schofield,  77  Hun  (N.  Y.)  236, 
28  XT.  Y.  Suppl.  340  [affirm^  in  145  N.  Y. 
598,  40  X.  E.  164]. 

Coparceners  see  Beck  v.  Kallmeyer,  42  Mo. 
App.  563;  Scott  r.  Guernsey,  60  Barb. 
(X.  Y.)  163  [affirmed  in  48  N.  Y.  106]; 
Wright  1-.  Wright,  59  How.  Pr.  (X^.  Y.)   176. 

87.  Matter  of  Lucy,  4  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  349, 
24  X.  Y.  Suppl.  352. 

88.  Flach  v.  Zanderson,  (Tex.  Civ.  App. 
1905)    91  S.  W.   348. 

[Ill,  F,  2,  e] 


89.  Matter  of  Lucy,  4  Misc.  (X".  Y.)  349, 
24  N.  Y.  Suppl.  352;  Hannan  r.  Osborn,  4 
Paige  (X".  Y.)  336.  See  Pope  f.  Tift,  69 
Ga.   741. 

90.  Kennon  r.  Wright,  70  Ala.   434. 

91.  Alabama. —  Long  r.  Grant,  163  Ala. 
507,  50   So.    914. 

California. —  Hewlett  v.  Owens,  51  Cal. 
570. 

Delaware. —  Burton  r.  Morris,  3  Harr.  269. 

Hawaii. —  Burrows  i".  Paaluhi,  4  Hawaii 
464. 

J/a»!P.— Smith  v.  Smith,  98  ile.  597,  57 
Atl.  999;  Whitten  r.  Hanson,  35  Me.  435. 

Minnesota. —  Schmidt  v.  Constans,  82 
Minn.  347,  85  X".  W.  173,  83  Am.  St.  Rep. 
437. 

Montana. — Ayotte  v.  Xadeau,  32  Mont. 
498,   81   Pac.    145. 

Yeio  York. —  Beeeher  v.  Bennett,  11  Barb. 
374;  Hudson  r.  Swan,  7  Abb.  X.  Gas.  324 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  83  N.  Y. 
552]. 

Pennsylvania. —  Coleman's  Appeal,  62  Pa. 
St.  252;  Coleman  i:  Blewett,  43  Pa.  St.  176; 
Blewett  r.  Coleman,  40  Pa.  St.  45;  Coleman 
V.  Coleman,  19  Pa.  St.  100,  57  Am.  Dec.  641. 

Texas. —  Carleton  v.  Hausler,  20  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  275,  49  S.  W.  118;  Gurlev  i:  Dickason, 
19  Tex.  Civ.  App.  203,  46  S.  W.  53. 

Tei-mot)  t.— Turner  c.  Waldo,  40  Vt.  51. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  25  et  seq. 

They  may  exchange  equities.  Anony- 
mous, Lofift  43,  98  Eng.  Reprint  523. 

Cotenants  may  appoint  each  other  agent. 
Fargo  r.  Owen,  79  Hun  (X.  Y.)  181,  29 
X.  Y.  Suppl.  611.  And  where  one  tenant  in 
common  acts  in  relation  to  the  common  prop- 
erty as  the  agent  of  the  other,  he  is  answer- 
able to  such  other  as  principal.  Redington 
r.  Chase,  44  X*.  H.  36,  82  Am.  Dec.  189; 
Switzer  i\  Switzer,  57  X'.  J.  Eq.  421,  41  Atl. 
486;  Thompson's  Appeal,  101  Pa.  St.  225. 

Heirs  at  law  may  contract  with  each  other 
in  relation  to  the  use  and  occupation  of  the 
common  property  descending  to  them  pre- 
vious to  its  sale  as  directed  by  the  testator. 
In  re  Journey,  7  Del.  Ch.  1,  44  Atl.  795. 
Under  an  understanding  between  heirs  of 
an  undivided  estate  that  each  is  to  manage 
in  the  interest  of  all  some  specified  part  of 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cye.]     73 


assigns,  are  as  bmding  as  if  between  strangers,  if  they  do  not  otherwise  conflict 
with  the  relationship  of  tenancy  in  common,*^  and  the  rights  of  the  respective 
parties  are  held  to  be  enforceable  either  at  law  or  in  equity,  for  purposes  of  offense 
or  defense. '^ 

H.  Estoppel  Between  Cotenants  as  to  Common  Title.    A  tenant  in 
common  must  act  consistently  in  relation  to  the  title  under  which  he  claims/* 


the  estate,  one  of  such  heirs  Is  not  to  be  re- 
garded as  an  agent,  whose  whole  time  must 
be  given  to  such  interests  during  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  employment,  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  his  care  for  any  separate  enterprises 
of  his  own.  Pierce  v.  Pierce,  55  Mich.  629, 
22  N.  W.  81. 

Conveyances.—  One  cotenant  may  legally 
convey  to  his  cotenant  an  interest  in  land  by 
the  ordinary  mode  of  conveyance.  McClure 
V.  McCluxe,  1  Phila.  (Pa.)  117.  And  one  of 
the  cotenants  becoming  sole  owner  of  the 
common  property  and  the  rents  issuing  there- 
from, from  a  joint  lease,  is  entitled  to 
maintain  such  proceedings.  Griffin  v.  Clark, 
33  Barb.    (N.   Y.)    46. 

An  agreement  to  divide  the  proceeds  of  sale 
between  them  is  not  a  conveyance  of  land,  or 
a  contract  to  convey  land  within  registra- 
tion acts.  Strong  v.  Harris,  84  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
314,  32  N.  Y.  Suppl.  349;  Lenoir  c.  Valley 
Elver  Min.  Co.,  113  N.  C.  513,  18  S.  E.  73. 

An  agreement  between  cotenants  with  a 
power  of  sale  with  an  interest  is  not  a  mere 
power  of  attorney,  but  in  the  nature  of  a 
contract  conveying  the  entire  interest  in  the 
land  for  the  purpose  stated.  Carleton  v. 
Hausler,  20  Tex.  Civ.  App.  275,  49  S.  W. 
118.  And  so  as  to  personalty.  Barnes  v. 
Bartlett,  15  Pick.  (Mass.)  71;  Corbett  v. 
Lewis,  53  Pa.  St.  322. 

In  a  sale  of  personal  property  between  co- 
tenants  there  is  no  warranty  of  title.  Dan- 
forth  v.  Moore,  55  N.  J.  Eq.  127,  35  Atl. 
410;  Gurley  V.  Dickason,  19  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
203,  46  S.  W.  53. 

92.  Coleman  ».  Blewett,  43  Pa.  St.  176; 
Coleman  v.  Grubb,  23  Pa.  St.  393;  Niles  v. 
Carlton,  83  Vt.  261,  75  Atl.  266. 

Where  several  grantees  in  common  of  the 
light  to  take  oil  from  land  conveyed  a  part 
of  their  respective  interests  to  several  others 
under  deeds  containing  certain  limitations, 
the  limitations  were  held  to  be  enforceable, 
Thompson's  Appeal,  101  Pa.  St.  225.  Com 
pare  Coleman's  Appeal,  62  Pa.  St.  252. 

The  word  "  minerals "  in  a  deed  of  par 
titiou  between  cotenants  has  been  held  to  ex- 
clude "  free  stone  "  unless  it  is  mined ;  it  has 
been  held  that  "  mining  "  depends  on  the  in 
tention  of  the  parties.  Darvill  v.  Roper,  3 
Drew.  294,  3  Eq.  Rep.  1004,  24  L.  J.  Ch, 
779,  3  Wkly.  Rep.  467,  61  Eng.  Reprint  915; 
Bell  V.  Wilson,  2  Dr.  &  Sm.  395,  34  L.  J. 
Ch.  572,  12  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  529,  6  New  Rep, 
81,  13  Wkly.  Rep.  708,  62  Eng.  Reprint  671 
[affirmed  in  L.  R.  1  Ch.  303,  12  Jur.  N.  S, 
263,  35  L.  J.  Ch.  337,  14  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S, 
115,  14  Wkly.  Rep.  493]. 

03.  Alabama. —  Fullington  v.  Kyle  Lumber 
Co.,  139  Ala.  242,  35  So.  852. 

Massachusetts. —  Keay  v.  Goodwin,  16 
Mass.  1. 


New  York. —  Beecher  v.  Bennett,  11  Barb. 
374;  Hudson  v.  Swan,  7  Abb.  N.  Gas.  324 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  83  N.  Y. 
552]. 

North  Carolina. —  Bond  v.  Hilton,  44 
N.  C.  308,  59  Am.  Dec.  552. 

Tennessee. —  Currens  v.  Lauderdale,  118 
Tenn.  496,  101  S.  W.  431. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  25  et  seq. 

Enforceable  against  grantee. — ^An  agree- 
ment between  cotenants  may  be  enforceable 
against  the  grantee  of  one  of  them.  Jones 
V.  Rose,  96  Md.  483,  54  Atl.  69;  St.  John  v. 
Coates,  63  Hun  (N.  Y.)  460,  18  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
419  [affirmed  in  140  N.  Y.  634,  35  N.  B. 
891]. 

The  leasing  tenant  in  common  may  dis- 
train against  his  lessee  cotenant.  Luther  v, 
Arnold,  8  Rich.   (S.  C.)   24,  62  Am.  Dec.  422. 

Tenants  in  common  may  vest  each  other 
with  the  right  of  survivorship  by  deed  inter 
partes,  but  they  cannot  convert  their  hold- 
ing into  a  technical  joint  tenancy,  so  as  to 
divest  themselves  of  the  right  of  partition 
as  tenants  in  common.  Truesdell  v.  White, 
13  Bush   (Ky.)   616. 

The  relationship  of  cotenancy  will  be  con- 
sidered in  the  construction  of  a  contract  be- 
tween the  cotenants.  Mylin  v.  King,  139 
Ala.  319,  35  So.  998;  Goldsborough  v.  Mar- 
tin, 86  Md.  413,  38  Atl.  934;  McCreery  v. 
Green,  38  Mich.  172. 

94.  A  lahama. —  Steed  t".  Knowles,  84  Ala. 
205,  3  So.   897. 

Georgia. —  Ralph  v.  Ward,  109  Ga.  363,  34 
S.  E.  610. 

Indiana. —  Millis  v.  Roof,  121  Ind.  360, 
23  N.  E.  255. 

Kansas. —  Schoonover  f.  Tyner,  72  Kan. 
475,  84  Pac.  124. 

Maryland. —  Funk  v.  Newcomer,  10  Md. 
301. 

New  Hampshire. —  Great  Falls  Co.  i'. 
Worster,  15  N.  H.  412;  Blake  v.  Milliken,  14 
N.  H.  213. 

New  Torlc. —  Siglar  i-.  Van  Riper,  10 
Wend.  414. 

North  Carolina. —  Mott  i:  Carolina  Land, 
etc.,  Co.,  146  N.  C.  525,  60  S.  E.  423;  Wood- 
lief  V.  Woodlief,  136  N.  C.  133,  48  S.  E.  583. 

Pennsylvania. —  Sinclair  v.  Baker,  1  Del. 
Co.    305. 

Teccas.— Powers  v.  Minor,  87  Tex.  83,  26 
S.   W.    1071. 

Canada. —  Leech  i:.  Leech,  24  U.  C.  Q.  B. 
321. 

The  recitals  in  a  joint  deed  by  tenants  in 
common  must  be  taken  as  relating  only  to 
the  several  property  of  each  grantor  respec- 
tively; therefore  tliey  will  not  be  estopped 
from  showing  any  error  or  mistake  that 
may  have  been  thus  committed   in   relation 

[III,  H] 


74     [38  Cye.] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


and  cannot  assail  that  title/'  nor  can  he  litigate  his  own  right  of  possession 
of  the  common  property,  against  his  cotenant  therein,  whilst  holding  posses- 
sion under  a  contract  from  said  cotenant;  *'  and  conversely,  if  he  claims  ouster 
of  his  cotenants,  he  cannot  afterward,  in  a  suit  between  the  same  parties,  claim 
his  original  interest  as  tenant  in  common.''  A  tenant  in  common  is  estopped 
from  claiming  imder  the  common  title  if  he  has  granted  away  his  own  rights  and 
ignored  the  rights  of  his  cotenants  in  the  common  property. ''  But  a  tenant  in 
common,  in  possession  under  a  title  other  than  that  of  cotenancy,  is  not  estopped 
from  setting  up  an  adverse  possession  based  on  such  other  title,""  as  where  he  has 
acquired  title  to  the  whole  after  his  entry; '  nor,  imder  such  circumstances,  should 
the  mere  purchase  of  a  title  of  an  alleged  cotenant,  to  quiet  title,  work  an  estoppel.^ 
I.  Respective  Interests  of  Cotenants.  Where  a  conveyance  to  pur- 
chasers of  a  tenancy  in  common  is  sUent  as  to  the  interest  of  each,  such  interests 
are  ordinarily  presumed  to  be  equal.^  But  such  presumption  is  rebuttable.* 
There  is  a  presumption  that  purchasers  of  a  common  estate  hold  shares  therein 
in  proportion  to  their  contribution  to  the  purchase-price,  if  the  contributions  to 
the  purchase-price  be  shown  to  have  been  unequal;  but  if  the  deed  to  purchasers 
does  not  show  their  respective  interests  in  the  common  property,  the  presumption 
arising  from  the  deed  may  be  overcome  by  the  presumption  arising  from  the 
amount  of  contribution.'  It  has  been  held  that  the  possession  of  a  cotenant  is 
ordinarily  notice  to  a  purchaser  of  the  whole  interest  that  such  cotenant  may 
have  in  the  estate."    But  mere  possession  by  one  who  appears  of  record  to  be  a- 


to  the  title  of  the  others  of  them  respec- 
tively. Sunderlin  r.  Struthers,  47  Pa.  St. 
411.  A  joint  conveyance  with  warranty  by 
tenants  in  common  has  been  held  to  be  an 
estoppel  as  against  one  of  them  who  held 
a  mortgage  from  the  other.  Durham  v. 
Alden,  20  Me.  228,  37  Am.  Dec.  48. 

95.  Arkansas. —  Hershey  v.  Clark,  27  Ark. 
527. 

District  of  Columbia. —  Morris  v.  Wheat,  11 
App.  Cas.  201. 

Maryland. —  Funk  v.  Xewcomer,  10  Md. 
301. 

Massachusetts. —  Flagg  c.  Mann,  14  Pick. 
467;  Porter  v.  Hill,  9  Mass.  34,  6  Am.  Dec. 
22. 

Mississippi. —  Baker  v.  Richardson,  (1909) 
50  So.  447;  Jonas  v.  Flanniken,  69  Miss. 
577,  11  So.  319. 

Sew  York. — Burhans  v.  Van  Zandt,  7  Barb. 
91  Ireversed  on  other  grounds  in  7  N.  Y. 
523,  Seld.  31];  Phelan  i:  Kelly,  25  Wend. 
389;  Jackson  v.  Streeter,  5  Cow.  529. 

Texas. —  Gray  v.  Kauffman,  82  Tex.  65,  17 
S.  W.  513.  Compare  York  r.  Hutchcson,  37 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  367,  83  S.  W.  895. 

Vermont. —  Braintree  r.  Battles,  6  Vt.  395. 

Washington. —  Cedar  Canyon  Consol.  Min. 
Co.  r.  Yarwood,  27  Wash.  271,  67  Pae.  749. 

96.  Hershey  v.  Clark,  27  Ark.  527;  Jack- 
son !,■.  Creal,  13  Johns.  (X.  Y.)  116.  But 
see  Tully  v.  Tully,  71  Cal.  338,  12  Pac.  246, 
holding  that  if  the  title  be  apparently  one 
creating  a  tenancy  in  common,  but  not  really 
creating  such  tenancy,  the  party  claiming 
thereunder  may  litigate  his  own  rights  as 
against  that  of  his  apparent  cotenant,  and 
he  is  not  estopped  from  setting  up  a  good 
title  subsequently  acquired  by  him. 

97.  Williams  v.  Sutton,  43  Cal.  65;  Gregg 
V.  Blackmore,  10  Watts  (Pa.)    192. 

98.  Reed  v.  Spicer,  27  Cal.  57. 

[Ill,  H] 


99.  Cooper  v.  Fox,  67  Miss.  237,  7  So.  342 
(married  woman  cotenant  setting  up  title  in 
her  hiusband)  ;  Washington  v.  Conrad,  2 
Humphr.  (Tenn.)  562. 

1.  Chamberlain  r.  Ahrens,  55  Mich.  Ill,  20 
K  W.  814;  Xeher  v.  Armijo,  9  N.  M.  325,  54 
Pac.  236;  Gilmer  r.  Beauchamp,  40  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  125,  87  S.  W.  907. 

2.  Vasquez  r.  Ewing,  24  Mo.  31,  66  Am. 
Dec.  694;  Zapf  v.  Carter,  70  N.  Y'.  App.  Div. 
395,  75  N.  Y.  Suppl.  197;  Navlor  v.  Foster, 
44  Tex.  Civ.  App.  599,  99  S.  W.  114;  York  v. 
Hutcheson,  37  Tex.  Civ.  App.  367,  83  S.  W. 
895. 

3.  Keuper  v.  Mette,  239  111.  586,  88  X.  E. 
218;  Markoe  f.  Wakeman,  107  111.  251;  Gert- 
ing  v.  Wells,  103  Md.  624,  64  Atl.  298,  433; 
Campau  r.  Campau,  44  Mich.  31,  5  X.  W. 
1062. 

4.  Adams  v.  Leavens,  20  Conn.  73 ;  Shiels 
v.  Stark,  14  Ga.  429;  Jackson  r.  Moore,  94 
N.  Y.  App.  Div.  504,  87  N.  Y.  Suppl.  1101; 
Gilmer  r.  Beauchamp,  40  Tex.  Civ.  App.  125, 
87  S.  W.  907;  Cage  v.  Tucker,  14  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  316,  37  S.  W.  180. 

Damage  proportioned  to  interests. —  Dam- 
ages caused  to  adjoining  lands  by  the  over- 
flow of  a  reservoir  owned  in  common  are  as- 
sessed in  proportion  to  the  respective  pro- 
iprietary  interests  in  said  reservoir,  even 
though  such  damages  were  caused  by  repairs 
or  improvements  made  on  such  "reservoir 
under  a  subscription  agreement  between  the 
several  parties  interested  therein,  in  which 
the  amounts  to  be  paid  respectively  were  not 
proportionate  to  the  respective  interests. 
Dodge  r.  Wilkinson,  3  Mete.    (Mass.)   292. 

5.  Bittle  i:  Clement,  (N.  J.  Ch.  1903)  54 
Atl.  138.  Compare  Anderson  v.  Clanch,  (Tex. 
1887)   6  S.  W.  760. 

6.  Allen  r.  Anthony,  1  Meriv.  282,  15  Rev. 
Rep.  113,  35  Eng.  Reprint  679. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc]    75 


tenant  in  common  in  the  premises  is  not  notice  of  a  parol  partition  or  agreement 
for  a  partition  so  as  to  affect  the  rights  of  those  claiming  under  him  without  notice.' 
The  respective  interests  of  the  cotenants  cannot  be  determined  in  an  action  for 
rent,  but  only  in  some  possessory  action.'  Where  title  to  part  of  a  tract  is 
adversely  acquired  by  a  stranger,  the  portion  thus  lost  will  be  the  common  loss 
according  to  the  respective  interests  of  the  coowners." 

J.  Remedies,  Actions,  and  Proceedings  —  l.  Account" — a.  Nature  and 
Grounds  of  Remedy  in  General.  At  common  law  if  one  tenant  in  common  occupied, 
and  took  the  whole  profits,  the  other  had  no  remedy  against  him  whilst  the  tenancy 
in  common  continued,  unless  he  was  put  out  of  possession,  when  he  might  have  his 
ej  ectment,  or  unless  he  appointed  the  other  to  be  his  bailiff  as  to  his  undivided  moiety, 
and  the  other  accepted  that  appointment,  when  an  action  of  account  would  lie,  as 
against  a  bailiff  of  the  owner  of  the  entirety  of  an  estate.''  But  accounting 
between  tenants  in  common  may  be  now  had  either  by  bill  in  equity  '^  or  by  an 
action  of  account,  at  law,  under  the  statute  of  Anne;  ^^  and  statutes  based  thereon 
and  substantially  similar  thereto,  which  provide  that  an  action  of  account  may 
be  maintained  by  one  tenant  in  common  against  the  other  for  receiving  more 
than  his  just  share  or  proportion; "  and  in  an  action  for  possession  by  tenants 


7.  Ralph  1-.  Ward,  109  Ga.  363,  34  S.  E. 
610;  Allday  t.  Whitaker,  66  Tex.  669,  1  S.  W. 
794. 

8.  Miller  i.  Miller,  7  Pick.  (Mass.)  133,  19 
Am.  Dec.  264;  Ayotte  t.  Nadeau,  32  Mont. 
498,  81  Pac.  145;  Blake  t.  Milliken,  14  N.  H. 
213.- 

9.  Pipkin  r.  Allen,  29  Mo.  229. 

10.  Equitable  accounting  see  in/ro.  III, 
.J,   1,  d. 

11.  Maine. —  Carter  t.  Bailey,  64  Me.  458, 
18  Am.  Rep.  273;  Estey  t.  Boardman,  61  Me. 
595. 

Pennsylvania. —  Irvine  v.  Hanlin,  10  Serg. 
&  R.  219;  Kennedy's  Estate,  1  Lack.  Leg.  N. 
135. 

Vermont.— Hsijden  v.  Merrill,  44  Vt.  336, 
8  Am.  Rep.  372;  JlcCrillis  v.  Banks,  19  Vt. 
442. 

England. —  Henderson  v.  Eason,'  17  Q.  B. 
701,  16  Jur.  518,  21  L.  J.  Q.  B.  82,  79  E.  C.  L. 
701;  Beer  v.  Beer,  12  C.  B.  60,  16  Jur.  223, 
21  L.  J.  C.  P.  124,  74  E.  C.  L.  60;  Wheeler  v. 
Home,  Willes  208. 


Morton,     3     Nova 
Connolly,   7    U.    C. 


Canada. —  Freeman  r. 
Scotia  340;  Gregory  v. 
Q.  B.  500. 

See  also  Peterson  v.  Kaanaana,  10  Hawaii 
384. 

12.  See  infra,   III,  J,   1,  d. 

13.  St.  4  Anne,  c.  16,  §  27. 

For  full  consideration  of  the  statute  of 
Anne  see  Henderson  v.  Eason,  17  Quebec  Q.  B. 
701  [reversing  12  Quebec-  Q.  B.  986].  See 
also  Kennedy's  Estate,  1  Lack.  Leg.  N.  (Pa.) 
135;  Gregory  v.  Connolly,  7  U.  C.  Q.  B.  500. 

The  statute  has  been  held  not  to  be  in 
force  in  some  jurisdictions.  See  Pico  v.  Co- 
lumbet,  12  Cal.  414,  73  Am.  Dec.  550 ;  Shiels 
V.  Stark,  14  Ga.  429;  Ayotte  v.  Nadeau,  32 
Mont.  498,  81  Pac.  145. 

Concurrent  jurisdiction. — As  a  general  rule 
statutes  giving  equity  jurisdiction  in  matters 
of  account  between  cotenants  do  not  deprive 
the  law  courts  of  their  jurisdiction,  where 
there  are  no  other  special  circumstances  for 


the  interference  of  equity  and  the  issues  be- 
tween the  parties  litigant  are  simple.  Carter 
■V.  Bailey,  64  Me.  458,  18  Am.  Rep.  273 ;  Blood 
f.  Blood,  110  Mass.  545;  Winton  Coal  Co.  v. 
Pancoast  Coal  Co.,  170  Pa.  St.  437,  33  Atl. 
110.  But  if  the  interest  of  plaintiff  and  the 
amount  to  which  he  is  entitled  cannot  be 
determined  without  an  accounting,  a  court  of 
equity  may  assume  jurisdiction.  Dvckman  t. 
Valiente,  42  N.  Y.  549. 

14.  Arkansas. —  Trapnall  v.  Hill,  31  Ark. 
345. 

Connecticut. —  Brady  v.  Brady,  82  Conn. 
424,  74  Atl.  684. 

Georgia. —  Neel  v.  Morris,  73  Ga.  406; 
Shiels  V.  Stark,  14  Ga.  429. 

Illinois.— Woolley  f.  Schrader,  116  111.  29, 
4  N.  E.  658 ;  Henson  v.  Moore,  104  111.  .403 ; 
Stenger  v.  Edwards,  70  111.  631. 

Indiana. —  Schissel  v.  Dickson,  129  Ind. 
139,  28  N.  E.  540;  McCrum  v.  McCrum,  36 
Ind.  App.  636,  76  N.  E.  415. 

Maine. —  Cutler  f.  Currier,  54  Me.  81. 

Michigan. —  Moreland  v.  Strong,  115  Mich. 
211,  73  N.  W.  140,  69  Am.  St.  Rep.  553. 

Minnesota. —  Shepard  v.  Pettit,  30  Minn. 
119,  14  N.  W.  511. 

Missouri. —  Beck  v.  Kallmeyer,  42  Mo.  App. 
563. 

Montana.— Ayotte  v.  Nadeau,  32  Mont. 
498,  81  Pac.  145;  Harrigan  v.  Lynch,  21 
Mont.  36,  52  Pac.  642. 

New  York. —  Gedney  v.  Gedney,  160  N.  Y. 
471,  55  N.  E.  1;  Hudson  v.  Swan,  83  N.  Y. 
552;  Osborn  f.  Schenck,  83  N.  Y.  201;  Dyck- 
man  v.  Valiente,  42  N.  Y.  549;  Cosgriff  i'. 
Dewey,  21  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  129,  47  N.  Y. 
Soippl.  255  [affirmed  in  164  N.  Y.  1,  58  N.  E. 
1,  79  Am.  St.  Rep.  620_]  ;  Wright  i'.  Wright, 
59  How.  Pr.  176  (holding  that  an  action  of 
account  may  be  maintained  where  a  tenant 
in  common  receives  the  entire  sales  price  for 
the  common  property)  ;  Hannan  v.  Osborn,  4 
Paige  336. 

North  Carolina. —  Roberts  v.  Roberts,  55 
N.  C.  128. 

[Ill,  J,  1.  a] 


To     [38  Cye.J 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


out  of  possession  the  court  may  appoint  a  reference  to  state  an  account  between 
the  parties.^^  "Under  the  statute  of  Anne  and  similar  statutes  the  action  of  account 
mayHje  had  independently  of  any  express  agreement  appointing  the  receiver 
of  the  rents,  profits,  or  income  bailiff  of  his  cotenants."  If  the  tenant  in  cominon 
receiving  profits  has  committed  waste  or  other  tort,  his  cotenants  may  waive 
the  tort  and  require  an  accounting,"  and  upon  the  ratification  of  a  sale  of  personal 


Rhode  Island. —  Almy  v.  Daniels,  15  R.  I. 
312,  4  Atl.  753,  10  Atl.  654. 

Fermomt— Hayden  v.  Merrill,  44  Vt.  336, 
8  Am.  Rep.  372  (holding,  however,  that  the 
case  must  be  brought  within  the  statute  by 
proper  allegations) ;  Leach  v.  Seattle,  33  Vt. 
195. 

West  Virginia. —  Dodson  v.  Hays,  29  W.  Va. 
577,  2  S.  E.  415. 

England. —  Thomas  f.  Thomas,  5  Exch.  28, 
14  Jur.  ISO,  19  L.  J.  Exeh.  175,  1  L.  M.  &  P. 
229;  Denvs  v.  Shuckburgh,  5  Jur.  21,  4  Y.  & 
C.  Exch.  42. 

Canada. —  Frost  v.  Disbrow,  12  N.  Brunsw. 
73;  Wiggins  v.  White,  2  N.  Brunsw.  97. 

See  note  to  Gage  v.  Gage,  28  L.  R.  A.  829. 

Tenants  for  years. —  A  statutory  action  of 
account  between  cotenants  may  be  inappli- 
cable to  tenants  for  years;  in  such  a  statute 
the  words  "  real  estate  "  may  be  held  to  have 
no  application  to  "  chattels  real."  Wells  v. 
Becker,  24  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  174. 

Statutory  and  common-law  bailiff  distin- 
guished.—  The  cotenant  receiving  more  than 
his  just  share  or  proportion  ipso  facto  makes 
him  bailiff  under  the  statute,  but  he  is  not 
answerable  thereunder  as  a  bailiff  would 
have  been  at  common  law  for  what  he  might 
have  made  in  the  absence  of  wilful  default. 
Irvine  v.  Hanlin,  10  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  219. 
See  also  Huff  f.  McDonald,  22  Ga.  131,  68 
Am.  Dec.  487;  Hudson  v.  Coe,  79  Me.  83,  8 
Atl.  249,  1  Am.  St.  Rep.  288;  Wright  v. 
Wright,  59  How.  Pr.   (N.  Y.)   176. 

Where  there  are  more  than  two  tenants  in 
common,  one  cannot  recover  rents  or  profits 
in  an  action  to  account  against  another ;  it 
is  a  case  for  chancery.  Wiswell  v.  Wilkins, 
4  Vt.  137. 

Such  a  statute  may  include  cases  of  per- 
sonal occupancy  as  well  as  receipt  of  rent. 
McParland  v.  Larkin,  155  111.  84,  39  N.  E. 
609;  Outler  v.  Currier,  54  Me.  81;  West  v. 
Weyer,  46  Ohio  St.  66,  18  X.  E.  537,  15  Am. 
St.  Rep.  552;  Lancaster  v.  Flowers,  208  Pa. 
St.  199,  57  Atl.  526;  Keller  f.  Lamb,  10 
Kulp  (Pa.)  246;  Hazard  i:  Albro,  17  E.  I. 
181,  20  Atl.  834;  Knowles  v.  Harris,  5  R.  I. 
402,  73  Am.  Dec.  77.  Proof  of  a  valid  con- 
tract of  rental,  fixing  rental  price,  is  prima 
facie  .evidence  to  charge  defendant  cotenant 
in  an  action  of  account  with  said  price. 
Tarleton  r.  Goldthwaite,  23  Ala.  346,  58  Am. 
Dec.  296. 

If  a  sealed  agreement  not  in  itself  creating 
the  relationship  of  tenancy  in  common  be- 
tween the  parties  who  are  not  otherwise 
tenants  in  common  be  the  cause  of  action, 
then  covenant  and  not  account  is  the  proper 
remedy.     Patten  v.  Heustis,  26  N.  J.  L.  293. 

Waste. —  A  statute  for  an  accounting  may 
not  be  applicable  in  a  case  of  waste  between 

[in,  J,  I,  a] 


cotenants.  Cecil  r.  Clark,  47  W.  Va.  402,  35 
S.  E.  11,  81  Am.  St.  Rep.  802. 

Under  Rhode  Island  Rev.  St.  209,  §  1,  the 
remedy  of  account  between  tenants  in  com- 
mon extends,  in  the  case  of  exclusive  users  of 
the  property,  to  fair  rental  value,  irrespect- 
ive of  profits  made  or  which  might  have  been 
made,  or  of  losses  suffered  in  such  use  dur- 
ing the  term  of  exclusive  operation.  Knowles 
f.  Harris,  5  R.  I.  402,  73  Am.  Dee.  77. 

Mining. —  Where  a  statute  required  that  an 
accounting  shall  be  for  "  what  is  justly  and 
equitably  due,"  damages  based  on  a  royalty 
for  mining  were  held  to  be  proper.  Fulmer's 
Appeal,  128  Pa.  St.  24,  18  Atl.  493,  15  Am. 
St.   Rep.  662. 

15.  Smith  V.  Smith,  150  N.  C.  81,  63  S.  E. 
177. 

16.  Huff  V.  McDonald,  22  Ga.  131,  68  Am. 
Dec.  487;  Hayden  i.  Merrill,  44  Vt.  336,  8 
Am.  Rep.  372;  Wheeler  v.  Home,  Willes 
208;  Gregory  v.  Connolly,  7  U.  C.  Q.  B. 
500. 

At  common  law  there  is  no  liability  so  to 
account  unless  there  was  an  actual  appoint- 
ment as  bailiff  or  agent;  nor  is  there,  at 
common  law,  a  lien  for  moneys  so  received. 
Crow  f.  Mark,  52  111.  332;  Gregg  v.  Roaring 
Springs  Land,  etc.,  Co.,  97  Mo.  App.  44,  70 
S.  W.  920;  Izard  v.  Bodine,  11  N.  J.  Eq.  403, 
69  Am.  Dec.  595 ;  Kennedy's  Estate,  1  Lack. 
Leg.  N.  (Pa.)  135;  Cain  v.  Cain,  53  S.  C. 
350,  31  S.  E.  278,  69  Am.  St.  Rep.  863 ;  Kalt- 
eyer  v.  Wipff,  92  Tex.  673,  52  S.  W.  63; 
La  Master  v.  Dickson,  17  Tex.  Civ.  App.  473, 

43  S.  W.  911 ;  Williamson  v.  Jones,  43  W.  Va. 
562,  27  S.  E.  411,  64  Am.  St.  Rep.  891,  38 
L.  R.  A.  694;  Gregory  r.  Connolly,  7  U.  C. 
Q.  B.  500. 

17.  Connecticut. —  Oviatt  v.  Sage,  7  Conn. 
95. 

Neiraslca. —  Names  r.  Xames,  48  Nebr.  701, 
67  N.  W.  751. 

New  York. —  Harris  v.  Gregg,  17  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  210,  45  N.  Y.  Suppl.  364. 

North  Carolina,. —  See  Darden  v.  Cowper, 
52  N.  C.  210,  75  Am.  Dee.  461. 

Virginia. — -Moorman  r.  Smoot,  28  Gratt. 
80;  Graham  r.  Pierce,  19  Gratt.  28,  100  Am. 
Dec.  658. 

West  Virginia. —  Cecil  v.  Clarke,  49  W.  Va. 
459,  39  S.  E.  202. 

England. —  Job  v.  Potton,  L.  E.  20  Eq.  84, 

44  L.  J.  Ch.  262,  32  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  110,  23 
Wkly.  Rep.  588. 

Mines. — An  action  of  accounting  has  been 
permitted  between  cotenants  where  defendant 
had  worked  mines  on  the  common  property, 
on  the  theory  that  such  action  was  not  for 
use  and  occupation  but  rather  for  deporting 
a  part  of  the  common  property.  Abbey  «. 
Wheeler,  170  N.  Y.  122,  62  N.  E.  1074. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cye.J     77 


property  an  accounting  has  been  allowed.^'  An  action  to  compel  an  account 
of  the  rents  and  profits  of  land  or  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  thereof  will  not  lie  where 
one  of  the  parties  has  a  mere  equitable  interest,  and  the  other  of  them  has  a  -legal 
title  in  the  land.''  Before  an  accounting  can  be  had  a  cotenancy  must  be  shown 
to  have  existed/"  and  the  burden  is  upon  plaintiff,  where  he  seeks  an  accounting 
of  rents  and  profits  from  his  cotenant  for  use  and  occupation  of  the  common 
property,  to  show  their  exclusive  possession,  or  the  derivation  of  some  profit  by 
defendant  amounting  to  more  than  defendant's  share.^'  As  the  issue,  in  the 
absence  of  statute  to  the  contrary,  in  an  action  of  accoimt  is,  in  the  first  instance, 
whether  there  shall  be  an  accounting  or  not  it  is  immaterial,  until  after  said  issue 
shall  have  been  determined,  whether  or  not  one  of  the  cotenants  had  made  profits 
out  of  the  common  estate.^^  An  action  of  account  has  been  held  not  to  be  main- 
tainable for  the  produce  that  the  occupying  cotenant  had  taken  for  his  own  benefit.^' 
Contribution  has  been  permitted  to  be  recovered  in  an  ordinary  civil  action  between 
tenants  in  common,^  and  by  way  of  set-off  or  in  mitigation  of  damages. ^^  If 
defendant  has  ousted  plaintiff,  plaintiff  must  establish  his  right  at  law  before 
he  can  recover  mesne  profits,^"  and  defendant  is  not  liable  for  wear  and  tear  arising 
from  proper  use  of  the  property,  only  for  damage  arising  from  negligence  or  mis- 
use; and  if  liable  because  of  abuse  and  misuse  of  the  property,  then  in  estimating 
the  damages  the  improvements  in  the  nature  of  general  repairs  made  by  defendant 
should  be  taken  into  consideration.^' 

b.  Demand  as  Condition  Precedent.     A  tenant  in  common  is  entitled  to  a 


18.  Oviatt  v.  Sage,  7  Conn.  95. 

19.  Cearnes  v.  Irving,   31  Vt.  604. 
Appointment  of  coowner  as  trustee. —  The 

coowner  of  a  mine  may,  in  a  suit  to  recover 
his  interest  therein  and  in  the  ores  extracted 
therefrom,  have  defendant  declared  a  trustee 
of  the  legal  title  for  his  benefit  to  the  extent 
of  his  interest.  Mills  v.  Hart,  24  Colo.  505, 
52  Pac.  680,  65  Am.  St.  Rep.  241. 

20.  Palmer  v.  Eich,  [1997]  1  Ch.  134,  66 
L.  J.  Ch.  69,  75  L.  T.  Eep.  N.  S.  484,  45 
Wkly.  Eep.  205 ;  In  re  Jackson,  34  Ch.  D.  732, 
56  L.  J.  Ch.  593,  56  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  562,  35 
Wkly.  Eep.  646;  Bone  v.  Pollard,  24  Beav. 
283,  53  Eng.  Eeprint  367;  Harrison  v.  Bar- 
ton, 1  Johns.  &  H.  287,  7  Jur.  N.  S.  519,  30 
L.  J.  Ch.  213,  3  L.  T.  Eep.  N.  S.  614,  9 
Wkly.  Eep.  177,  70  Eng.  Eeprint  756 ;  Robin- 
son V.  Preston,  4  Jur.  N.  S.  186,  4  Kay  &  J. 
505,  27  L.  J.  Ch.  395,  70  Eng.  Eeprint 
211. 

Acts  of  ownership  by  the  alleged  tenants 
in  common  in  various  parts  of  the  land  in- 
differently must  be  shown  in  order  to  estab- 
lish a  tenancy  in  common  by  use  and  enjoy- 
ment.   Tisdall  X,.  Parnell,  14  Ir.  C.  L.  1. 

21.  Puller  V.  Sweet,  30  Mich.  237,  18  Am. 
Eep.  122;  Rose  f.  Cooley,  (X.  J.  Ch.  1906) 
62  Atl.  867;  Barrell  v.  Barrell,  25  N.  J.  Eq. 
173.  But  see  Shepard  v.  Pettlt,  30  Minn. 
119,  14  N.  W.  511,  holding  that  in  a  suit 
between  tenants  in  common  for  the  conversion 
of  logs  cut  from  the  common  property,  there 
is  no  burden  on  plaintiff  to  prove  that  de- 
fendant converted  more  than  his  share,  un- 
less otherwise  provided  by  statute.  Compare 
Barnum  v.  Landon,  25  Conn.  137,  holding 
that  the  allegation,  in  a  suit  between  coten- 
ants for  a  share  of  the  rent  received  by  one 
of  them,  that  defendant  has  taken  more  than 
his  share  is  unnecessary,  because   defendant 


is  liable  to  account  for  whatever  share  of  the 
rent  he  may  have  received. 

Minority  as  sufficient  evidence  of  want  of 
consent  to  appropriation  of  profits  see  Cutler 
V.  Currier,  54  Me.  81. 

22.  Hawley  v.  Burd,  6  111.  App.  454,  hold- 
ing such  testimony  inadmissible. 

23.  Joslyn  v.  Joslyn,  9  Hun  (N.  Y.)  388 
(where  under  a  statute  authorizing  an  action 
of  account  or  assumpsit  between  cotenants,  it 
was  held  that  the  right  of  recovery  was  lim- 
ited to  a  proportionate  amount  of  the  net 
actual  receipts,  and  did  not  include  what  had 
been  taken  from  the  common  property  and 
applied  to  the  use  of  the  occupying  cotenant 
therein)  ;  Dresser  v.  Dresser,  40  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
300;  Dodson  v.  Hays,  29  W.  Va.  577,  2  S.  E. 
415. 

Expenditures. —  Accounting  has  been  held 
to  be  the  proper  remedy  for  the  recovery  of 
necessary  expenditures  for  repairs  or  im- 
provements by  way  of  reimbursement  from 
profits.  Backus  v.  Chapman,  111  Mass.  386; 
Carver  x..  Miller,  4  Mass.  559.  And  see  infra, 
III,  J,   1,  c. 

24.  Fowler  f.  Fowler,  50  Conn.  256;  Kites 
v.  Church,  142  Mass.  586,  8  N.  E.  743; 
Schneider  Granite  Co.  f.  Taylor,  64  Mo.  App. 
37;  Wood  v.  Merritt,  2  Bosw.  (N.  Y.) 
368. 

Contribution  by  owners  of  vessel  see  Arey 
V.  Hall,  81  Me.  17,  16  Atl.  302,  10  Am.  St. 
Eep.  232;  Andrew  i;.  New  Jersey  Steamboat 
Co.,  11  Hun  (N.  Y.)  490;  Wood  f.  Merret, 
2  Bosw.    (N.  Y.)    368. 

25.  Backus  t.  Chapman,  111  Mass.  386; 
Burrell  v.  Bull,  3  Sandf.  Ch.   (N.  Y.)    15. 

26.  Izard  v.  Bodine,  11  N.  J.  Eq.  403,  69 
Am.  Dec.  595. 

27.  Bodkin  v.  Arnold,  48  W.  Va.  108,  35 
S.  E.  980. 

[HI,  J,  1,  b] 


78     [38  Cyc] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


demand  for  an  accounting  within  a  reasonable  time  before  an  action  can  be 
maintained  therefor;  ^*  on  refusal  to  comply  with  which  accounting  wiU  lie.^° 

c.  Crediting  Expenditures  For  Common  Benefit.  Expenditures  made  in  good 
faith  imder  circumstances  justifying  them  should  be  credited  to  the  cotenant  so 
making  said  expenditures  in  a  suit  for  an  accounting; '°  and  such  expenditures 
are  a  proper  subject  for  accounting,^'  and  may  be  availed  of  by  way  of  recoupment 
or  set-off. ^^  If  they  be  made  for  permanent  improvements,  then  it  will  depend 
upon  the  circumstances  of  the  particular  case  whether  such  improvements  will 
be  allowed  for  to  the  extent  of  their  full  value,^^  or  only  to  the  extent  of  the  rents. 


28.  Barnum  v.  Landon,  25  Conn.  137 ;  Ela 
V.  Ela,  70  N.  H.  163,  47  Atl.  414;  West  v. 
Weyer,  46  Ohio  St.  66,  18  N.  E.  537,  15  Am. 
St.  Rep.  552. 

29.  Johnston  v.  Price,  172  Pa.  St.  427,  33 
Atl.  688. 

A  joint  owner  in  possession  is  the  agent  of 
the  joint  coowners,  and  is  accountable  to 
them  for  their  portion  of  the  rent  from  the 
date  when  he  is  notified  thus  to  account. 
Moreira  c.  Schwan,  113  La.  643,  37  So.  542; 
Ayotte  c.  Nadeau,  32  Mont.  498,  81  Pac. 
145. 

30.  Alabama. —  Gayle  'C.  Johnston,  80  Ala. 
395,  credit  for  necessary  advances  to  make  a 
crop. 

District  of  Columbia. — Alexander  r.  Doug- 
lass, 6  D.  C.  247. 

//ZiHoi's.— Cheney  v.  Ricks,  187  111.  171,  58 
N.  E.  234. 

Kentucl-y. — Armstrong  v.  Bryant,  16  S.  W. 
463,  13  Ky.  L.  Rep.  128. 

Louisiana. —  Sharp  v.  Zeller,  114  La.  549, 
38  So.  449;  Moreira  f.  Schwan,  113  La.  643, 
37  So.  542. 

M  assa-chusetts. —  Dewing  r.  Dewing,  165 
Mass.  230,  42  N.  E.  1128;  Carver  v.  Miller, 
4  Mass.  559. 

Michigan. —  Boyce  v.  Boyce,  124  Mich.  696, 
83  X.  W.  1013;  Moreland  v.  Strong,  115 
Mich.  211,  73  N.  W.  140,  69  Am.  St.  Rep.  553. 

Minnesota. —  Kean  v.  Connelly,  25  Minn. 
222,  33  Am.  Rep.  458.  But  see  Walter  v. 
Greenwood,  29  Minn.  87,  12  N.  W.  145,  hold- 
ing that  proof  of  the  moneys  due  for  improve- 
ments unaccompanied  by  proof  of  the  amount 
of  the  increase  of  income  arising  from  such 
improvements  is  immaterial. 

Missouri. —  Bates  v.  Hamilton,  144  Mo.  1, 
45  S.  W.  641,  66  Am.  St.  Eep.  407. 

Kew  Hampshire. —  Pickering  v.  Pickering, 
63  N.  H.  468,  3  Atl.  744. 

Xew  Jersey. —  Switzer  v.  Switzer,  57  N.  J. 
Eq.  421,  41  Atl.  486;  Cooper  v.  Cooper,  9 
N.  J.  Eq.  566. 

New  Yorfc.— Collins  v.  Collins,  8  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  502,  40  N.  Y.  Suppl.  902 ;  Hannan 
V.  Osborn,  4  Paige  336. 

Pennsylvania. —  Luck  v.  Luck,  113  Pa.  St. 
256,  6  Atl.  142;  Dech's  Appeal,  57  Pa.  St. 
467;  Anderson  v.  Greble,  1  Ashm.  136; 
Grubb  V.  Grubb,  30  Leg.  Int.  241. 

Tennessee. — -Sutton  c.  Sutton,  (Ch.  App. 
1900)   58  S.  W.  891. 

Virginia. —  Graham  v.  Pierce,  19  Gratt.  28, 
100  Am.  Dec.  658  (operating  lead  mines)  ; 
Euffners  v.  Louis,  7  Leigh  720,  30  Am.  Dec. 
513. 

Wisconsin. —  Gerndt  v.   Conradt,   117   Wis. 

[Ill,  J,  1,  b] 


15,  93  N.  W.  804;  Tipping  v.  Robbins,  71 
Wis.  507,  37  N.  W.  427. 

England. —  Job  v.  Potton,  L.  R.  20  Eq.  84, 
44  L.  J.  Ch.  262,  32  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  110,  23 
Wkly.  Rep.  588. 

Canada. —  In  re  Curry,  25  Ont.  App.  267 
[aljirming  17  Ont.  Pr.  379]. 

Such  credits  must  ordinarily  be  based  on 
actual  expenditures,  if  such  expenditures  be 
less  than  the  value  of  the  increment,  in 
preference  to  being  based  on  the  fair  market 
value  of  the  increment  or  on  its  reasonable 
worth.  Contaldi  v.  Errichetti,  79  Conn.  273, 
64  Atl.  211. 

In  developing  a  mine  expenses  properly  in- 
curred may  be  allowed  despite  the  inequitable 
conduct  of  the  cotenant  accounting.  Detter- 
ing  V.  Nordstrom,  148  Fed.  81,  78  C.  C.  A. 
157;  Job  V.  Potton,  L.  R.  20  Eq.  84,  44  L.  J. 
Ch.  262,  32  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  110,  23  Wkly. 
Rep.  588.  See  also  McCord  v.  Oakland  Quick- 
silver Min.  Co.,  64  Cal.  134,  27  Pac.  863,  49 
Am.  Rep.  686,  developing  a  mine  and  buying 
in  an  outstanding  paramount  title.  But 
it  has  been  held  that  after  money  has 
been  paid  into  cooirt  in  a  suit  for  an  account- 
ing, if  defendants  without  the  consent  of 
plaintiffs  expend  money  in  developing  or 
prospecting  mining  property  owned  in  com- 
mon by  the  parties  litigant,  then  they  are 
not  entitled  to  contribution  therefor  out  of 
the  fund  in  court.  Stickley  v.  Mulrooney,  36 
Colo.  242,  87  Pac.  547. 

One  adversely  holding  the  common  prop- 
erty until  a  constructive  trust  was  declared 
by  the  court  should  have  no  compensation  for 
his  care  of  the  property.  Anderson  V:  Nor- 
throp, 44  Ela.  472,  33  So.  419. 

The  principle  applies  to  interest  on  the  in- 
debtedness of  a  tenant  in  common  to  hia  co- 
tenant  for  purchase-price  of  the  land.  Volen- 
tine  V.  Johnson,  1  Hill  Eq.   (S.  C.)  49. 

31.  Carver  v.  Miller,  4  Mass.  559;  Cotton 
V.  Coit,   (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1895)   30  S.  W.  381. 

Where  one  tenant  in  common  sowed  a 
piece  of  land  with  grain  on  the  common 
ground,  and  while  the  grain  was  growing,  the 
tenants  by  agreement  divided  the  land  held 
in  common,  and  the  land  upon  which  the 
grain  was  growing  was  set  to  the  other  ten- 
ant who  harvested  the  crop,  the  tenant  who 
sold  the  grain  had  a  legal  claim  for  the  ex- 
pense and  it  was  a  proper  subject  of  account- 
ing between  them.  Kidder  f.  Rixford,  16  Vt 
169,  42  Am.  Dec.  504. 

32.  Dewing  v.  Dewing,  165  Mass.  230;,  42 
K.  E.  1128;  Backus  i".  Chapman,  111  Mass. 
386. 

33.  TurnbuU    v.   Foster,    116   Ga.    765,   43 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cye.]     79 


profits,  and  income  collected  from  the  common  property."  Thus  it  has  been  held 
that  where  money  has  been  expended  in  the  making  of  necessary  repairs  on  the 
common  property  which  without  such  repairs  was  untenantable,  and  thereby  it 
became  rentable  and  income-paying,  the  cotenant  claiming  for  the  improvements 
is  accountable  for  all  the  rents  and  profits,  but  is  permitted  to  reimburse  himself 
for  said  necessary  expenditures  only  to  the  extent  of  the  rents  and  profits  in  his 
hands.'^  Generally  the  occupying  cotenant  should  be  allowed  for  his  improve- 
ments to  the  common  property  to  the  extent  that  they  enhance  the  value  of  the 
property,  if  they  are  made  in  good  faith  and  not  adversely.^"  Rents,  profits,  and 
income  received  by  him  should,  between  the  cotenants,  be  regarded  as  paid  -pro 
tanto  by  the  increased  value  thus  imparted,  and  he  should  be  charged  only  with  such 
rents,  profits,  and  income  as  were  due  on  the  property  in  its  unimproved  condi- 
tion,''  the  rents  due  to  the  improvements  being  left  to  the  tenant  who  made  them,^' 
he,  however,  being  chargeable  with  rent  of  such  portion  of  the  common  property 
as  has  been  rendered  productive  by  the  labor  of  the  non-occupying  tenant.^"  If 
the  occupying  tenant  excludes  the  other  under  claim  of  ownership  to  the  whole 
he  must  account  for  rent  received  during  the  period  of  exclusion  in  excess  of  the 
enhanced  value  of  the  premises  due  to  improvements.*"  In  a  final  accounting 
between  cotenants  the  party  chargeable  should  be  credited,  among  other  credits, 
if  any,  with  all  payments  made  to  his  cotenants  as  a  part  of  the  common  fund; 
even  though  at  any  time  he  so  paid  over  more  than  the  amount  then  due,  never- 
theless he  should  be  properly  credited  therewith  and  such  payments  should  be 
so  pleaded  and  proved.^'     But  a  tenant  in  common  is  not  entitled  to  be  reim- 


S.  E.  42;  Holt  v.  Couch,  125  N.  C.  456,  34 
S.  E.  703,  74  Am.  St.  Eep.  648.  See  also 
Williams  v.  Williams,  68  L.  J.  Ch.  528,  81 
L.  T.  Eep.  N.  S.  163 ;  Kenrick  v.  Mountsteven, 
48  Wkly.  Eep.  141. 

A  purchasei  of  the  interest  of  one  tenant 
in  common  in  possession  of  the  land  is  bound 
to  account  for  the  income  of  so  much  thereof 
as  was  productive  at  the  time  of  his  purchase 
and  taking  possession,  although  it  was  ren- 
dered productive  by  the  occupying  tenant  of 
whom  he  purchased.  Hancock  v.  Day, 
McMull.  Eq.    (S.  C.)    298. 

34.  Williams  v.  Coombs,  88  Me.  183,  33 
Atl.  1073. 

35.  McCaw  v.  Barker,  115  Ala.  543,  22  So. 
131;  Williams  i'.  Coombs,  88  Me.  1'83,  33 
Atl.  1073;  Cooper  v.  Cooper,  9  N.  J.  Eq. 
566. 

36.  Hawaii. —  Nahaolelua  i".  Kaaahu,  10 
Hawaii  662. 

Iowa. — Van  Ormer  v.  Harley,  102  Iowa 
150,  71  N.  W.  241. 

Kansas. — -Phipps  v.  Phipps,  47  Kan.  328, 
27  Pac.  972. 

Kentucky. —  Graham  v.  Graham,  6  T.  B. 
Mon.  561,  17  Am.  Dec.  166;  McClanahan  v. 
Henderson,  2  A.  K.  Marsh.  388,  12  Am.  Dec. 
412. 

Michigan. —  Patrick  !:.  Kalamazoo  Y.  M. 
C.  A.,  120  Mich.  185,  79  N".  W.  20«. 

North  Carolina. —  Holt  v.  Couch,  125  N.  C. 
456,  34  S.  E.  703,  74  Am.  St.  Eep.  648. 

West  Virginia. — Williamson  v.  Jones,  43 
W.  Va.  562,  27  S.  E.  411,  64  Am.  St.  Eep. 
891,  38  L.  E.  A.  694. 

Canada. —  Eice  v.  George,  20  Grant  Ch. 
j;U.  C.)    221. 

But  see  Middlebury  Electric  Co.  v.  Tupper, 
70  Vt.  603,  41  Atl.  582,  holding  cotenants  not 


liable  to  contribute  for  permanent  improve- 
ments. 

37.  Hannah  v.  Carver,  121  Ind.  278,  23 
N.  E.  93;  Carver  v.  Fennimore,  116  Ind.  236, 
19  N.  E.  103;  Van  Ormer  v.  Harley,  102 
Iowa  150,  71  N.  W.  241;  Nahaolelua  r. 
Kaaahu,  10  Hawaii  662;  Cain  v.  Cain,  53 
S.  C.  350,  31  S.  E.  278,  69  Am.  St.  Eep.  863; 
Holt  v.  Eobertson,  McMull.  Eq.  (S.  C.)  475; 
Thompson  v.  Bostick,  McMull.  Eq.  (S.  C.) 
75;. Hancock  f.  Day,  McMull.  Eq.  (S.  C.)  69, 
36  Am.  Dec.  293;  Volentine  v.  Johnson,  1 
Hill  Eq.  (S.  C.)  49;  Williamson  v.  Jones, 
43  W.  Va.  562,  27  S.  E.  411,  64  Am.  St.  Eep. 
891,  38  L.  E.  A.  694. 

38.  Shiels  v.  Stark,  14  Ga.  429;  Eaftery 
;;.  Monahan,  22  E.  I.  558,  48  Atl.  940 ;  Annely 
r.  De  Saussure,  26  S.  C.  497,  2  S.  E.  490,  40 
Am.  St.  Eep.  725;  Early  v.  Friend,  16  Gratt. 
(Va.)   21,  78  Am.  Dec.  649. 

If  all  the  profits  are  due  to  the  improve- 
ments only,  made  in  good  faith  and  not  under 
an  adverse  holding,  then  those  not  sharing 
in  the  costs  thereof  are  not  entitled  to  any 
share  of  the  profits.  Nelson  v.  Clay,  7  J.  J. 
Marsh.    (Ky.)    138,  23  Am.  Dec.   387. 

39.  Volentine  v.  Johnson,  1  Hill  Eq.  (S.  C.) 
49. 

40.  Eenshaw  r.  Tullahoma  First  Nat. 
Bank,    (Tenn.  Ch.  App.  1900)    63  S.  W.  194. 

41.  Schettler  v.  Smith,  34  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 
17;  Kidder  v.  Eixford,  16  Vt.  169,  42  Am. 
Dec.  504. 

Where  tenants  in  common  consume  the 
rents  and  profits  of  the  common  property 
themselves,  what  they  so  received  should  be 
considered  on  an  accounting.  Buck  v. 
Martin,  21  S.  C.  590,  53  Am.  Eep.  702.  See 
also  Cain  l-.  Cain,  53  S.  C.  350,  31  S.  E.  278, 
69  Am.  St.  Eep.  863. 

[Ill,  J,  1,  e] 


80     [S8  Cye.J 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


bursed  for  expenses  incurred  where  there  is  no  showing  that  they  were  for  the 
common  benefit/^  or  where  they  were  made  after  the  revocation  of  authority  to 
cotenants  so  to  make  said  expenditures  if  such  revocation  be  equitably  sufficient;  ^ 
or  where  the  expenditures  were  made  during  the  time  of  a  precedent  estate  for 
the  benefit  of  the  precedent  tenancy  only,"  and  no  allowance  should  be  made 
for  expenditures  extraneous  to  the  subject-matter.*^  In  those  jurisdictions  which 
permit  a  judgment  in  favor  of  defendant  for  such  amoimt  as  may  be  justly  due 
him,  a  judgment  should  be  allowed  for  defendant  for  the  balance  due  him  in  an 
action  of  accounting  where  it  appears  that  the  net  profits  from  the  common  prop- 
erty are  less  than  the  amount  properly  expended  by  him  for  the  common  benefit.*^ 
Infancy  may  be  shown  to  prove  want  of  consent  to  appropriations.*' 

d.  Equitable  Accounting.  Equity  has  jurisdiction,  under  a  proper  biU  setting 
out  sufficient  facts,  to  require  an  accounting  between  cotenants.**  But  such  a  bill 
must  set  forth  some  equity,  such  as  the  need  for  discovery  or  the  absence  of  remedy 
at  law  or  the  involvement  of  some  question  of  account,  and  the  rights  of  the 
complainant  in  equity  must  be  clear,*'  for  although  some  courts  seem  to  hold 
broadly  that  equity  has  jurisdiction  in  matters  of  account  between  tenants  in 
common,  or  that  it  has  concurrent  jurisdiction  with  courts  of  law  in  such  matters,^* 
courts  of  equity  generally  require  special  circumstances  in  matters  of  accoimting 
between  tenants  in  common  before  they  will  act;  and  where  the  account  is  simple 
or  can  be  readily  determined  such  account  has  been  held  not  to  be  sufficient  for 
the  intervention  of  chancery;  *'  and  it  is  generally  laid  down  that  equity  wUl  not, 


42.  Miner  f.  Lorman,  70  ilich.  173,  38 
N.  W.  18;  Pickering  f.  Pickering,  63  X.  H. 
468,  3  Atl.  744;  Hall  v.  Fisher,  20  Barb. 
(X.  Y.)  441;  Farrand  c.  Gleason,  56  Vt.  633. 

43.  Switzer  t.  Switzer,  57  X.  J.  Eq.  421, 
41  .Atl.  486. 

44.  Booth  t.  Booth,  114  Iowa  78,  86  X.  W. 
51;  Zapp  V.  ililler,  109  X.  Y.  51,  15  X.  E. 
889. 

One  purchasing  the  interest  of  a  tenant  in 
common  at  a  foreclosure  sale  becomes  tenant 
in  common  with  the  other  cotenants,  for  the 
purposes  of  an  accounting  between  them  from 
the  time  of  his  deed  and  not  from  the  date 
of  mortgage;  and  no  charges  should  be  em- 
braced for  expenditures  prior  to  date  of  said 
time.    Davis  v.  Chapman,  24  Fed.  674. 

45.  Beezley  r.  Crossen,  14  Oreg.  473,  13 
Pac.  306. 

No  allowance  for  payment  of  taxes  on  a 
void  assessment. —  See  Cole  t.  Cole,  57  Misc. 
(X.  Y.)  490,  108  X.  Y.  Suppl.  124. 

46.  Dewing  c.  Dewing,  165  Mass.  230,  42 
X.  E.  1128;  Eaftery  f.  Monahan,  22  E.  I. 
558,  48  Atl.  940. 

47.  Cutler  i.  Currier,  54  3Ie.  81. 

48.  HoUahan  t.  Sowers,  111  111.  App.  263; 
Whiton  V.  Spring,  74  X.  Y.  169;  Dyckman  t. 
Valiente,  42  X.  Y.  549;  Sherman  c.  Ballon,  8 
Cow.  (X".  Y.)  304.  See  also  Butte,  etc., 
Consol.  Min.  Co.  r.  Montana  Ore  Purchasing 
Co.,  25  Mont.  41,  63  Pac.  825,  holding  that 
where  a  statute  conferred  equity  jurisdiction, 
and  was  subsequently  amended  so  as  to  con- 
fer new  rights  on  another  class  of  cotenants, 
and  a  cotenancy  was  created  after  the  pas- 
sage of  the  original  act,  and  before  said 
amendment  thereto  became  operative,  such 
cotenant  was  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the 
original  act  as  the  amendment  thereto  was 
only  prospective  in  its  operation. 

[Ill;  J.  1.  e] 


Filing  bill  not  a  ratification  of  a  lease. — 
Where  one  cotenant  undertakes  to  lease  the 
common  property  and  a  bill  is  subsequently 
filed  denying  the  title  of  the  lessor  and  the 
validity  of  the  lease,  but  nevertheless  pray- 
ing for  discovery  and  an  accounting  of 
profits  received  by  virtue  of  one  of  the  terms 
of  the  lease,  such  action  is  not  in  itself  a 
ratification  of  the  lease.  McXeely  t.  South 
Penn  Oil  Co.,  58  W.  Va.  438,  52  S.  E. 
480. 

A  mortgagee  of  the  share  of  a  tenant  in 
common  may  maintain  a  bill  for  account- 
ing against  the  mortgagor  and  his  cotenants 
therein.  Bentley  x,.  Bates,  4  Jur.  552,  9 
L.  J.  Exch.  30,  4  Y.  &  C.  Exch.  1S2. 

49.  Moreira  c.  Schwan,  113  La.  643,  37 
So.  542;  Blood  f.  Blood,  110  Mass.  545;  Mor- 
gan f.  Long,  73  Miss.  406,  19  So.  98,  55  Am. 
St.  Rep.  541;  Harrington  c.  Florence  Oil  Co., 
178  Pa.  St.  444,  35  Atl.  855. 

If  an  accounting  be  necessary  to  fix  the 
interest  of  a  coowner  in  personal  property 
that  has  been  converted  by  his  cotenants,  an 
equitable  action  may  be  maintained.  Carter 
r.  Bailey,  64  Me.  458,  18  Am.  Rep.  273; 
Whiton  r.  Spring,  74  N.  Y.  169;  Dyckman  v. 
Valiente,  42  X".  Y.  549;  Xewfan  f.  Newman, 
27  Gratt.  (Va.)  714;  Euffners  f.  Lewis,  7 
Leigh   (Va.)    720,  30  Am.  Deo.  513. 

50.  Georgia. —  Xeel  v.  Morris,  73  Ga.  406. 
Illinois. —  Henson  v.  Moore,  104  111.  403. 
Kew     Jersey. —  Martin     v.     Martin,      (Ch. 

1892)    23  Atl.  822. 

New  York. — Dyckman  v.  Valiente,  42  X  Y 
549. 

Pennsylvania. — ^Harrington  v.  Florence  Oil 
Co.,  178  Pa.  St.  444,  35  Atl.  855. 

Vermont. —  Leach  r.  Beattie,  33  Vt.  195. 

51.  California. —  Pico  v.  Columbet,  12  Cal. 
414,  73  Am.  Dec.  550. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  CycJ     81 


in  the  absence  of  statute,  assume  jurisdiction  of  an  accounting  unless  there  are 
special  circumstances  making  the  action  at  law  for  an  account  an  inadequate 
remedy.^^  A  bill  for  an  account  may  be  sustained  without  previously  recovering 
possession;  ^  but  equity  will  not,  in  the  absence  of  statute,  entertain  a  suit  for 
an  accounting  of  profits  by  one  not  in  possession  until  after  the  determination 
of  the  question  of  title  in  a  pending  suit  at  law,^  or  where  the  amount  claimed 
to  be  due  is  fixed  and  certain,  or  where  a  valuation  is  to  be  made  and  there  is  no 
further  reason  for  the  interposition  of  equity.^^  There  is  no  statutory  equitable 
jurisdiction  unless  the  case  comes  within  the  statute;  thus  if  a  statute  gives  juris- 
diction in  certain  matters  between  tenants  in  common,  equity  has  no  jurisdiction 
if  the  parties  intended  to  become  tenants  in  common,  but  are  not  actually  such 
tenants.^" 

2,  Assumpsit  —  a.  In  General.  One  cotenant  under  agreement  with  the 
other,  express  or  implied,  may  recover  in  assumpsit  for  services  rendered  or 
expenditures  made,^'  or  for  money  received  for  the  common  property,^*  or  for 
a  liquidated  amount  due  under  a  contract  between  the  parties,^"  and  if  an  account 
be  adjusted  or  stated,  debt  or  assumpsit  lies/"    If  a  cotenant,  as  cotenant,  wrong- 


Mmne. —  Carter  i\  Bailey,  64  Jle.  458,  l& 
Am.  Eep.  273. 

Massachusetts. —  Blood  v.  Blood,  110  Mass. 
545. 

New  York. —  Dyekman  ;;.  Valiente,  42 
N.  Y.  549. 

Fermorat— Wiswell  v.  Wilkins,  4  Vt.   137. 

Limitations  are  the  same  at  law  and  in 
equity  in  an  action  of  accounting  where  there 
is  concurrent  jurisdiction  at  law  and  in 
equity.  St.  John  r.  Coates,  63  Hun  (jST.  Y.) 
460,  18  N.  Y.  Suppl.  419  laffirmed  in  140 
N.  Y.  634,  35  X.  E.  891]. 

52.  Merchant's  Bank  v.  Foster,  124  Ala. 
696,  27  So.  513;  Pegram  v.  Barker,  115  Ala. 
543,  22  So.  131;  Pico  v.  Columbet,  12  Cal. 
414,  73  Am.  Dec.  550;  Carter  r.  Bailey,  64 
Me.  458,  18  Am.  Rep.  273;  Blood  ;;.  Blood, 
110  Mass.  545. 

Moneys  received  by  one  cotenant  as  the 
agent  of  the  other  for  the  sale  of  his  interest 
to  a  third  party  are  not  held  in  trust  by  said 
agent  so  as  to  entitle  the  principal  to  main- 
tain a  suit  in  equity  for  an  accounting,  the 
proper  remedy  being  a  suit  at  law  to  recover 
the  amount  alleged  to  be  due.  Garside  v. 
Nerval,  1  Alaska  19.  Compare  Clark  v. 
Jones,  49  Cal.  618. 

53.  Johnson  v.  Burslem,  2  L.  J.  Ch.  0.  S. 
168,  26  Rev.  Rep.  212. 

54.  Swearingen  v.  Barnsdall,  210  Pa.  St. 
84,  59  Atl.  477. 

55.  Pegram  i:  Barker,  115  Ala.  543,  22  So. 
131;  Martin  t.  Martin,  (N.  J.  Ch.)  23  Atl. 
822. 

Where  the  use  and  occupancy  of  the  com- 
mon property  has  been  under  an  agreement, 
and  the  only  question  is  as  to  the  extent  of 
interest  in  the  common  property,  an  action 
of  assumpsit  is  not  ousted  merely  by  a  statu- 
tory granting  of  jurisdiction  to  a  court  of 
equity  in  similar  cases.  Winton  Coal  Co.  v. 
Pancoast  Coal  Co.,  170  Pa.  St.  437,  33  Atl. 
100. 

56.  Flagg  y.  Mann,  14  Pick.   (Mass.)   467. 

Nor  where  a  statute  or  its  intended  appli- 
cation is  ■unconstitutional. —  North  Pennsyl- 
vania Coal  Co.  v.  Snowden,  42  Pa.  St.  488, 
82  Am.  Dec.  530. 

[6] 


57.  Alabama. —  Russell  v.  Russell,  62  Ala. 
48;  Strother  v.  Butler,  17  Ala.  733. 

Illinois. —  Haven  v.  Mehlgarten,  19  111.  91. 

Kentucky. — Alexander  v.  Ellison,  79  Ky. 
148. 

Massachusetts. —  Gwinneth  v.  Thompson,  9 
Pick.  31,  19  Am.  Dec.  350. 

Pennsylvania. —  Beaty  v.  Bordwell,  91  Pa. 
St.  438. 

A  sealed  agreement  to  pay  a  share  of  the 
crops  for  work  and  labor  thereupon  does  not 
per  se  create  a  tenancy  in  common.  Covenant 
is  the  proper  remedy  on  such  a  cause  of 
action.     Patten  v.  Heustis,  26  N.  J.  L.  293. 

Woodland  or  arable  land. —  The  rule  has 
been  held  not  to  extend  to  woodland  or  arable 
land  at  common  law.  Alexander  v.  Ellison, 
79  Ky.  148;  Carv«r  v.  Miller,  4  Mass.  559; 
Beaty  i:  Bordwell,  91  Pa.  St.  438;  Gregg  v. 
Patterson,  9  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.)  197;  Bowles' 
Case,  11  Coke  796,  77  Eng.  Reprint  1252. 
See  also  4  Kent  Comm.  (13th  ed.)  370. 

Set-off. — An  assumpsit  for  destruction  and 
carrying  away  of  timber  trees  is  maintain- 
able, but  a  similar  claim  cannot  be  pleaded  in 
set-off  by  defendant,  as  it  is  not  a  mutual 
debt  and  demand  and  tenants  in  common  can- 
not join  in  such  an  action.  Mooers  v.  Bunker, 
29  N.  H.  420;  Smith  v.  Woodman,  28  N.  h. 
520.  Taxes  constitute  an  equity  of  set-off. 
Kean  v.  Connelly,  25  Minn.  222,  33  Am.  Rep. 
458. 

58.  Hudson  r.  Coe,  79  Me.  83,  8  Atl.  249, 
1  Am.  St.  Rep.  288 ;  Miller  v.  Miller,  7  Pick. 

(Mass.)  133,  19  Am.  Dec.  264  (on  sale  of 
trees)  ;  Stone  v.  Aldrich,  43  N.  H.  52; 
Brinckerhoff  v.  Wemple,  1  Wend.  (X.  y.)  470 

(damages  for  land  taken  by  eminent  do- 
main) . 

Even  though  plaintiff  had  alienated  his  in- 
terest in  the  common  land  after  liability 
attached,  assumpsit  might  be  maintained. 
Blake  v.  Milliken,  14  N.  H.  213. 

59.  Burnham  v.  Best,  10  B.  Mon.  (Ky.) 
227 ;  Kites  v.  Church,  142  Mass.  586,  8  N.  E. 
743. 

60.  Hamilton  v.  Conine,  28  Md.  635,  92 
Am.  Dec.  724;  Jones  v.  Harraden,  9  Mass. 
540   note;    Dyekman    v.   Valiente,    42    N.    Y. 

[Ill,  J,  2,  a] 


82     [38  Cyc] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


fully  exceeds  his  rights,  and  assumes  an  unauthorized  control  over  the  share  of 
the  other  cotenant,  his  cotenant  may  ratify  the  wrongful  act  and  recover  his  share 
of  the  proceeds  thereof,  or  he  may  still  claim  the  interest  of  a  cotenant  as  against 
the  wrong-doer  or  any  one  holding  under  him.°^  Where  a  tenant  in  common  sells 
more  than  his  share  of  the  common  property  with  the  consent  of  his  cotenant, 
an  action  for  money  had  and  received  may  be  maintained  against  him  because 
of  his  implied  agency;  °^  and  where  the  tort  of  conversion  has  been  committed 
between  tenants  in  common,  the  damaged  party  may  waive  the  tort,  elect  to 
ratify  the  sale  or  other  act  of  the  cotenant,  and  bring  assumpsit."'  Each  tenant 
in  common  has  an  equal  right  to  the  possession  and  use  of  the  common  property, 
and  assumpsit  cannot  be  maintained  between  the  cotenants  for  their  respective 
shares  of  interest  therein  in  the  absence  of  statute,  unless  there  has  been  a  sale 
or  destruction  of  said  property,  or  sorae  act  has  been  committed  inconsistent  with 
the  common  ownership  or  amounting  to  a  denial  of  the  right  of  plaintiff  therein;  °* 


549 ;  Jackson  I'.  Moore,  94  N.  Y.  App.  Div. 
504,  87  N.  Y.  Suppl.  1101.  See  also  Kanstead 
f.  Eanstead,  74  Md.  378,  22  Atl.  403. 

Even  though  there  be  statutoiy  lelief  in 
equity  and  no  express  promise.  Fanning  v. 
Chadwiek,  3  Pick.  (Mass.)  420,  15  Am.  Dec. 
233. 

The  burden  is  on  plaintifi  to  prove  the  ac- 
count stated.  Baxter  i'.  Hozier,  Arn.  519, 
5  Bing.  N.  Cas.  288,  8  L.  J.  C.  P.  169,  7 
Scott  233,  35  E.  C.  L.  161. 

61.  Harris  f.  Umsted,  79  Ark.  499,  96 
S.  W.  146;  Barry  i.  Baker,  93  S.  W.  1061, 
29  Ky.  L.  Kep.  573. 

62.  Murley  v.  Ennis,  2  Colo.  300;  Dickin- 
son t.  Williams,  11  Cush.  (Mass.)  258,  59  Am. 
Dec.  142;  Haven  f.  Foster,  9  Pick.  (Mass.) 
112,  19  Am.  Dec.  333;  Shaw  v.  Grant,  2  N. 
Brunsw.  110.  See  also  Frost  %.  Disbrow,  12 
N.  Brunsw.  73. 

Against  vendee. —  It  has  been  held  that 
such  action  may  be  maintained  against  the 
vendee.     Stone  i.  Aldrioh,  43  N.  H.  52. 

63.  Ala.'bama. —  Fielder  v.  Childs,  73  Ala. 
567;  Cowles  f.  Garrett,  30  Ala.  341;  Tankers- 
ley  V.  Childers,  23  Ala.  781;  Smyth  t.  Tan- 
kersley,  20  Ala.  212,  56  Am.  Dec.  193. 

California. — Williams  v.  Chadbourne,  6 
Cal.  559. 

Colorado.—  Murley  v.  Ennis,  2  Colo.  300. 

Kentucky. —  Taylor  v.  Perkins,  1  A.  K. 
Marsh.  253. 

J/ome.— Carter  v.  Bailey,  64  Me.  548,  18 
Am.  Rep.  273;  Moses  v.  Ross,  41  Me.  360,  66 
Am.  Dec.  250. 

Massachusetts. —  Briggs  v.  Call,  5  Mete. 
504;  Miller  v.  Miller,  7  Pick.  133,  19  Am. 
Dec   264. 

Michigan. — Williams  v.  Rogers,  110  Mich. 
418,  68  N.  W.  240;  Tuttle  v.  Campbell,  74 
Mich.  652,  42  N.  W.  384,  16  Am.  St.  Rep. 
652;  Loomis  r.  O'Neal,  73  Mich.  582,  41 
N.  W.  701;  Fiquet  v.  Allison,  12  Mich.  328, 
86   Am.   Dee.   54. 

Nelraska. —  Perry  v.  Granger,  21  Nebr. 
579,  33  N.  W.  261. 

'Keiv  Hampshire. —  White  v.  Brooks,  43 
N.  H.  402;  Stone  v.  Aldrich,  43  N.  H.  52; 
Kenniston  v.  Ham,  29  N.  H.  501;  Blake  !;. 
Milliken,  14  N.  H.  213. 

A^etu  York. —  Harris  i\  Gregg,  17  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  210,  45  N.  Y.  Suppl.  364;  Small 
r.   Robinson,  9  Hun  418. 

[Ill,  J,  2,  a] 


Pennsylvania. — -Winton  Coal  Co.  v.  Pan- 
coast  Coal  Co.,  170  Pa.  St.  437,  33  Atl.  110; 
Browning  v.  Cover,  108  Pa.  St.  595. 

Virginia. —  Moorman  v.  Smoot,  28  Gratt. 
80. 

Timber. —  If  no  question  is  made  as  to  the 
title  of  the  land,  a  tenant  in  common  sell- 
ing trees  therefrom  and  receiving  property 
in  payment  will  be  liable  to  his  cotenants 
in  an  action  for  money  had  and  received. 
Miller  v.  Miller,  7  Pick.  (Mass.)  133,  19  Am. 
Dec.  264;  W'hite  v.  Brooks,  43  N.  H.  402; 
Blake  v.  Milliken,  14  N.  H.  213;  Holt  v. 
Robertson,  McMull.  Eq.  (S.  C.)  475.  A 
suit  for  accounting  is  not  the  proper  method 
of  ascertaining  the  damage  to  the  interest 
of  one  cotenant  by  the  wrongful  cutting  of 
the  timber  on  the  part  of  the  other,  in  the 
absence  of  statutes  or  equitable  reason. 
U.  S.  V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  6  Mont.  351, 
12  Pac.  769.  See  also  McGahan  v.  Rondout 
Nat.  Bank,  156  U.  S.  218,  15  S.  Ct.  347,  39 
U  ed.  403. 

Tenants  in  common  cannot  join  against  a, 
cotenant  in  actions  of  assumpsit  for  value 
of  timber.      Mooers  v.  Bunker,  29  N.  H.  420. 

Defenses  that  might  be  urged  in  tort  are 
available  in  assumpsit  on  waiver  of  tort. 
Gilmore  v.  Wilbur,  12  Pick.  (Mass.)  120,  22 
Am.   Dec.   410. 

Defendant  cannot  be  heard  to  complain  of 
such  waiver  as  it  redounds  to  his  benefit. 
Miller  v.  Miller,  7  Pick.  (Mass.)  133,  19 
Am.  Dec.  264. 

64.  Arkansas. —  Bertrand  f.  Taylor,  32 
Ark.  470. 

Louisiana. —  Becnel  v.  Becnel,  23  La.  Ann. 
150. 

Maine. — Richardson  i\  Richardson,  72  Me. 
403;   Gowen  v.  Shaw,  40  Me.  56. 

Michigan. — Wilmarth  v.  Palmer,  34  Mich. 
347. 

'New  York. —  Joslyn  r.  Joslyn,  9  Hun  388; 
McCarthy  v.  McCarthy,  40  Misc.  180,  81 
N.  Y.  Suppl.  660. 

Pennsylvania. —  Wells  v.  Becker,  24  Pa. 
Super.  Ct.  174. 

Wisconsin. — Bulger  v.  Woods,  3  Pinn.  460. 

Canada. —  Doyle  t\  Taylor,  2  N.  Brunsw. 
201. 

Assumpsit  will  not  lie  where  question  of 
title  to  real  estate  is  involved.  Kran  v. 
Case,    123   111.   App.   214. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cye.J     83 


nor  in  the  absence  of  an  agreement,  express  or  implied/^  Special  assumpsit 
for  a  share  of  the  rents,  profits,  or  income  is  not  maintainable  unless  the  case 
is  brought  fully  within  the  statute  both  by  the  pleadings  and  the  evidence,"" 
and  a  declaration  in  assumpsit  founded  on  a  statute  should  be  special  on  the 
statute  and  not  merely  under  the  common  counts."' 

b.  For  Rents  and  Profits.  Ordinarily  the  only  remedy  between  cotenants 
and  those  standing  in  fiduciary  relations  to  them  to  recover  a  portion  of  rents 
received  by  either,  or  moneys  properly  expended  for  the  common  benefit,  is  by 
a  bill  in  equity  or  an  action  of  account  at  law  either  under  the  statute  of  Anne 
or  some  other  statutory  provision."'  Thus  it  is  held  that  a  tenant  in  common 
cannot,  independently  of  statute,  and  in  the  absence  of  an  agreement,  express 
or  implied,  maintain  assumpsit  against  his  cotenant  who  has  received  more  than 
his  share  of  the  rents,  profits,  and  income  of  the  estate,  the  remedy  being  an 
action  of  account; ""  nor  ordinarily,  in  the  absence  of  statute,  if  the  rents  and 
profits  were  received  at  a  time  when  the  one  receiving  them  was  not  asserting 
title  in  himself.'"  But  such  an  action  is  allowed  in  some  jurisdictions,  sometimes 
being  permitted  by  statute;  "  and  if  there  is  an  express  or  implied  agreement  by 


Money  paid  by  a  tenant  in  common  to  his 
cotenant  for  ore,  under  a  mistaken  idea  that 
the  exclusive  title  to  the  land  from  which 
the  ore  was  talien  was  in  him  so  receiving 
said  money,  is  not  recoverable  in  assumpsit, 
the  proper  remedy  being  account  rendered. 
Irvine  r.  Hanlin,  10  Serg.  &  R.   (Pa.)   219. 

65.  Illinois. —  Kran  v.  Case,  123  111.  App. 
214. 

Indiana. —  Harry  v.  Harry,  127  Ind.  91,  26 
N.  E.  562. 

Maine. —  Gowen  v.  Shaw,  40  Me.  56. 

Sew  Hampshire. —  Webster  *.  Calef,  47 
N.  H.  289;  Wiggin  v.  Wiggin,  43  N.  H.  561, 
80  Am.  Dec.   192. 

A'eio  York. —  Central  Trust  Co.  v.  New 
York  Equipment  Co.,  87  Hun  421,  34  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  349,  pledgee  caring  for  and  selling 
pledged  property. 

Texas. —  Ring  i:  Smith,  I  Tex.  App.  Civ. 
Cas.   §   1115. 

Virginia. —  Ballou  v.  Ballou,  94  Va.  350, 
26  S.  E.  840,  64  Am.  St.  Rep.  733,  holding 
that  assumpsit  cannot  be  maintained  by  one 
tenant  against  his  cotenants  for  any  part 
of  moneys  expended  by  him  for  improve- 
ments or  repairs  without  their  assent  or  re- 
quest. 

An  offer  to  buy  or  sell  the  common  prop- 
erty is  not  sufficient  foundation  on  which  to 
base  an  action  of  assumpsit,  between  the 
tenants  in  common  against  the  cotenant  in 
possession.      Whitmore  v.  Alley,  46  Me.  428. 

66.  Dyer  i:  Wilbur,  48  Me.  287;  Moses  i'. 
Ross,  41  Me.  360,  66  Am.  Dec.  250;  Smith 
V.  Woodman,  28  N.  H.  520. 

67.  Smith  v.  Woodman,  28  N.  H.  520. 

68.  Whiton  v.  Spring,  74  N.  Y.  169;  Sher- 
man i\  Ballou,  8  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  304;  Denys 
V.  Shuckburgh,  5  Jur.  21,  4  Y.  &  C.  Exch.  42. 

69.  Alabama. —  Fielder  «.  Childs,  73  Ala. 
567. 

Illinois.—  Crow  v.  Mark,  52  111.  332 ;  Kran 
V.  Case,   123   111.   App.   214. 

Indiana. —  McCrum  V.  McCrum,  36  Ind. 
App.  636,  76  N.  E.  415. 

Kentucky. —  Talbott  v.  Todd,  5  Dana  190. 

Maine. —  See  Magulre  v.  Pingree,  30  Me. 
508. 


Michigan. — Wilmarth  t\  Palmer,  34  Mich. 
347. 

Tennessee. —  Terrell  v.  Murray,  2  Yerg. 
384. 

Texas. —  Ring  i\  Smith,  1  Tex.  App.  Civ. 
Cas.  §  1115;  McGrady  v.  McRae,  1  Tex.  App. 
Civ.  Cas.   §   1036. 

Vermont. —  McCrillis  v.  Banks,  19  Vt.  442. 

England. —  Thomas  v.  Thomas,  5  Exch.  28, 
14  Jur.  180,  19  L.  J.  Exch.  175,  1  L.  M.  &  P. 
229. 

Canada. —  Frost  v.  Disbrow,  12  N.  Brunsw. 
73. 

The  theory  of  liability  in  such  a  case  is 
not  based  upon  the  existence  of  a  promise, 
either  implied  or  expressed.  Kran  v.  Case, 
123  111.  App.  214. 

Unless  there  be  an  account  settled  and 
balance  agreed  on  it  is  held  that  assumpsit 
cannot  be  maintained.  Frost  v.  Disbrow, 
12  N.  Brunsw.  73.     See  also  infra,  note  72. 

Where  a  tenant  in  common  leases  his  in- 
terest and  collects  rents  therefor  without 
interference  with  the  rights  of  his  cotenants 
in  the  premises  assumpsit  does  not  lie. 
Seantlin  v.  Allison,  32  Kan.  376,  4  Pac.  618. 

70.  Ryason  i\  Dunten,  164  Ind.  85,  73 
N.  E.  74. 

71.  Alabama. —  Price  v.  Pickett,  21  Ala. 
741. 

Maine.— Hudson  r.  Coe,  79  Me.  83,  8  Atl. 
249,  1  Am.  St.  Rep.  288 ;  Richardson  v.  Rich- 
ardson, 72  Me.  403 ;  Carter  v.  Bailey,  64  Me. 
458,  18  Am.  Rep.  273;  Cutler  v.  Currier,  54 
Me.  81  (holding  that  assumpsit  may  be 
maintained  even  though  defendant  did  not 
occupy  the  whole  of  the  common  estate)  ; 
Dyer  v.  Wilbur,  48  Me.  287;  Moses  v.  Ross, 
41  Me.  360,  66  Am.  Dec.  250;  Gowen  r. 
Shaw,  40  Me.  56 ;  Buck  i.  Spofford,  31  Me.  34. 

Massachusetts. — Dickinson  r.  Williams,  11 
Cush.  258,  59  Am.  Dec.  142.  See  Thayer  v. 
Brewer,  15  Pick.  217;  Brigham  v.  Eveleth, 
9  Mass.  538. 

Missouri. —  Rogers  v.  Penniston,  16  Mo. 
432. 

'New  Hampshire. —  Gage  v.  Gage,  66  N.  H. 
282,  29  Atl.  543,  28  L.  R.  A.  829. 

"New  York. —  Wright  v.  Wright,   59  How. 

[HI,  J,  2,  b] 


84     [38  Cye.;/ 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


an  occupying  cotenant  to  pay  rent,  assumpsit  will  lie  for  the  recovery  thereof.'^ 
The  burden  is  on  plaintiff  to  show  actual  receipt  by  defendant  of  more  than  his 
share/'  and  in  order  to  support  such  an  action  it  must  appear  that  defendant 
has  received  more  than  his  share,  not  merely  of  a  single  article  of  produce  but 
of  the  entire  profits  of  the  estate,  after  deducting  all  reasonable  charges;  and  that 
the  balance  is  due  to  plaintiff,  and  not  to  other  cotenants." 

3.  Tort  Actions  —  a.  In  General ;  Trover,  Actions  in  tort  may  be  main- 
tained between  cotenants  where  plaintiff  has  been  ousted  or  kept  out  of  possession 
of  the  common  property,  or  where  there  has  been  some  denial  or  impairment 
of  his  right  in  the  common  property,  or  where  it  is  so  provided  by  statute.'^    As 


Pr.  176;  Cocliran  v.  Carrington,  25  Wend. 
409. 

Pennsylvania. —  Steele  v.  ilcGill,  172  Pa. 
St.  100,  33  Atl.  146;  Winton  Coal  Co.  v. 
Pancoast  Coal  Co.,  170  Pa.  St.  437,  33  Atl. 
110;  BorreU  v.  Borrell,  33  Pa.  St.  492;  Gillis 
f.  McKinney,  6  Watts  &  S.  78. 

Texas. —  McGrady  v.  McRae,  1  Tex.  App. 
Civ.  Cas.   §   1036. 

A  disseizee  of  lands  cannot  bring  assump- 
sit against  the  disseizor,  his  cotenant,  for 
.rents  and  profits  received  after  disseizin. 
Richardson  t.  Richardson,  72  Me.  403. 

If  title  to  the  land  is  in  issue  assumpsit 
vein  not  lie.  Miller  k.  Miller,  7  Pick.  (Mass.) 
133,  19  Am.  Dec.  264.  But  see  Hudson  i-. 
Coe,  79  Me.  83,  8  Atl.  249,  1  Am.  St.  Rep. 
288,  holding  that  such  action  will  not  be 
defeated  on  account  of  a  dispute  raised  by 
defendant  concerning  the  title,  provided 
plaintiff  was  owner  in  the  estate,  and  was 
not  disseized  at  the  date  when  the  income 
was  received  in  money  by  defendant. 

It  may  be  for  a  share  of  the  tazes  paid 
upon  the  common  property.  Kites  v.  Church, 
142  Mass.  586,  8  N.  E.  743. 

Assumpsit  lies  after  the  termination  of  the 
cotenancy  against  one  who  during  said  re- 
lationship received  more  than  his  share  of 
the  income,  although  he  denied  said  relation- 
ship.     Blake  r.  Milliken,  14  N.  H.  213. 

Adjustment  for  payment  of  moneys  be- 
tween cotenants  under  the  mistaken  belief 
that  the  title  of  the  common  property  was  in 
one  of  the  cotenants  is  by  way  of  accounting 
and  not  of  assumpsit.  Irvine  v.  Hanlin,  10 
Serg.   &  R.    (Pa.)    219. 

72.  Chapman  v.  Duffy,  20  Colo.  471,  79 
Pac.  746  (oral  agreement)  ;  Blanton  v.  Van- 
zant,   2   Swan    (Tenn.)    276. 

Agreement  between  heirs,  pending  sale. — 
Where  a  statute  provides  for  assumpsit  for 
use  and  occupation  against  the  cotenants, 
the  heirs  at  law  to  whom  property  descends 
may,  prior  to  its  sale  as  by  the  testator 
directed,  contract  with  each  other  for  use 
and  occupation,  or  maintain  action  against 
each  other  therefor.  In  re  Journey,  7  Del. 
Ch.  1,  44  Atl.  795;  Richardson  v.  Richard- 
son,  72  Me.   403. 

The  adverse  holding  of  land  by  a  cotenant 
does  not  render  him  liable  to  his  cotenants 
for  the  use  and  occupation  of  the  land,  be- 
cause where  the  holding  is  adverse  there  is 
no  relation  of  landlord  and  tenant.  Wil- 
marth  v.  Palmer,  34  Mich.  347. 

Occupants  of  land  obtaining  title  to  an  un- 
divided   share    during    their    occupancy    and 

[III,  J,  2,  b] 


continuing  the  same  were  not  chargeable 
by  their  cotenants  for  use  and  occupation 
after  acquiring  said  title.  Bigelow  i:  Bige- 
low,  75  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  98,  77  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
716. 

73.  Gowen  i-.  Shaw,  40  Me.  56. 
Recovery  is  limited  to  the  proportionate 

share  of  the  net  amount  actually  received; 
none  can  be  had  for  what  the  occupying  co- 
tenant  takes  from  the  land  for  his  own  use, 
and  there  is  no  presumption  that  the  amount 
of  rent  received  by  a  tenant  in  common  for 
the  rental  of  a  portion  of  the  common  prop- 
erty equals  the  full  annual  rental  value  of 
the  whole  of  said  property.  Joslyn  v.  Jos- 
lyn,  9  Hun    (N.  Y.)    388. 

74.  Hudson  v.  Coe,  79  Me.  83,  8  Atl.  249, 
1  Am.  St.  Rep.  288;  Shepard  i\  Richards,  2 
Gray  (Mass.)  424,  61  Am.  Dec.  473;  Winton 
Coal  Co.  i-.  Pancoast  Coal  Co.,  170  Pa.  St. 
437,  33  Atl.  110;  Southwest  Coal,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  Warden,  1  Pa.  Cas.  102,  1  Atl.  421.  Com- 
pare Walker  v.  Hiunbert,  55  Pa.  St.  407. 

75.  Alabama. — Steiner  r.  Tranum,  98  Ala. 
315,  13  So.  365 ;  Sullivan  v.  Lawyer,  72  Ala. 
74;  Russell  v.  Russell,  62  Ala.  48;  Arthur  v. 
Gayle,  38  Ala.  259;  Smythe  v.  Tankersley, 
20  Ala.  212,  56  Am.  Dec.  193;  Perminter  v. 
Kelly,  18  Ala.  716,  54  Am.  Dec.   177. 

Arkansas. —  Trapnall  v.  Hill,  31  Ark.   345. 

California. —  Carpenter  -v.  Mitchell,  29  Cal. 
330. 

Connecticut. —  See  Oviatt  v.  Sage,  7  Conn. 
95. 

Geor^to.— King  v.  Neel,  98  Ga.  438,  25 
S.  E.  513,  58  Am.  St.  Rep.  311;  Starnes  v. 
Quin,  6  Ga.  84. 

Illinois. —  Benjamin  v.  Stremple,  13  111. 
466. 

Iowa. —  Conover  t\  Earl,  26  Iowa  167. 

Kentucky. —  Bell  v.  Layman,  1  T.  B.  Mon. 
39,   15  Am.  Dec.  83. 

Maine. —  Davis  r.  Poland,  102  Me.  192,  66 
Atl.  380,  10  L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  212;  Strickland 
V.  Parker,  54  Me.  263;  Symonds  i\  Harris, 
51  Me.  14,  81  Am.  Dec.  553;  Pillsbury  v. 
Moore,  44  Me.  154,  69  Am.  Dec.  91;  Wheeler 
V.  Wheeler,  33  Me.  347 ;  Maddox  v.  Goddard, 
15  Me.  218,  33  Am.  Dec.  604;  Herrin  v. 
Eaton,   13  Me.   193,  29  Am.  Dee.  499. 

Maryland. — Winner  r.  Penniman,  35  Md. 
163,  6  Am.  Rep.  385;  Dailey  v.  Grimes,  27 
Md.   440. 

Massachusetts. —  Needham  v.  Hill,  127 
Mass.  133;  Goell  r.  Morse,  126  Mass.  480; 
Delaney  v.  Root,  99  Mass.  546,  97  Am.  Dec. 
52;  Hunting  v.  Russell,  2  Cush.  145:  Weld 
V.  Oliver,  21  Pick.  559. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc.j 


each  tenant  in  common  is  entitled  to  the  possession,  use,  and  enjoyment  of  the 
common  property,  the  general  rule  is  that  a  tenant  in  common  cannot  maintain 


Michigan. — Williams  v.  Rogers,  110  Mich. 
418,  68  N.  W.  240;  Clow  v.  Plummer,  85 
Mich.  550,  48  N.  W.  795 ;  McClure  i..  Thorpe. 
68  Mich.  33,  35  K  W.  829;  Grove  v.  Wise, 
39  Mich.  161;  Bray  v.  Bray,  30  Mich.  479; 
Eipley  v.  Da-vis,  15  Mich.  75,  9  Am.  Dec. 
262;  Webb  v.  Mann,  3  Mich.  139. 

Minnesota. —  Shepard  v.  Pettit,  30  Minn. 
119,  14  N.  W.  511;  Person  v.  Wilson,  25 
Minn.  189 ;  Gould  v.  Eagle  Creek  School  Sub- 
Dist.  No.  3,  8  Minn.  382. 

Mississippi. —  Corbin  v.  Cannon,  31  Miss. 
570;  Harmon  v.  James,  7  Sm.  &  M.  Ill,  45 
Am.  Dec.  296. 

Missouri. —  Falconer  v.  Roberts,  88  Mo. 
574. 

Montana. —  Butte,  etc.,  &  B.  Consol.  Min. 
Co.  I'.  Montana  Ore  Purchasing  Co.,  25  Mont. 
41,  63  Pac.  825. 

ycftrosfed.— Reed  v.  McRill,  41  Nebr.  206, 
59  N.  W.  775;  Perry  i,-.  Granger,  21  Nebr. 
679,  33  N.  W.  261. 

'New  Hampshire. —  Pickering  v:  Moore,  67 
N.  H.  533,  32  Atl.  828,  68  Am.  St.  Rep.  695, 
31  L.  R.  A.  698;  Redington  v.  Chase,  44 
N.  H.  36,  82  Am.  Dec.  189;  White  v.  Brooks, 
43  N.  H.  402;  Great  Falls  Co.  v.  Worster, 
15  N.  H.  412;  Blake  v.  Milliken,  14  N.  H. 
213;  Chesley  v.  Thompson,  3  N.  H.  9,  14  Am. 
Dec.  324. 

New  Jersey. —  Boston  v.  Morris,  25  N.  J.  L. 
173. 

Neio  Yorfc.— Stall  r.  Wilbur,  77  N.  Y. 
158;  Lobdell  v.  Stowell,  51  N.  Y.  70;  Dyck- 
man  v.  Valiente,  42  N.  Y.  549;  Peterson  v. 
De  Baun,  36  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  259,  55  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  249;  LeBarron  v.  Babcock,  46  Hun 
598  [affirmed  in  122  N.  Y.  153,  25  N.  E.  253, 
19  Am.  St.  Rep.  488,  9  L.  R.  A.  025] ;  Moore 
V.  Erie  R.  Co.,  7  Lans.  39;  Channon  f.  Lusk, 
2  Lans.  211;  Green  v.  Edick,  66  Barb.  564 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  56  N.  Y.  613] ; 
Benedict  r.  Howard,  31  Barb.  569;  Flint  v. 
Frantzman,  1  Silv.  Sup.  547,  5  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
623;  Adams  v.  Loomis,  7  N.  Y.  St.  592;  Pat- 
ten V.  Neal,  62  How.  Pr.  158;  White  v.  Os- 
born,  21  Wend.  72;  Farr  v.  Smith,  9  Wend. 
338,  24  Am.  Dec.  162 ;  Hyde  v.  Stone,  9  Cow. 
230,  18  Am.  Dec.  601.  Compare  Osborn  v. 
Schenck,  83  N.  Y.  201. 

North  Carolina. — Waller  v.  Bowling,  108 
N.  C.  289,  12  S.  B.  990,  12  L.  R.  A.  261; 
Johnson  v.  Swain,  44  N.  C.  335 ;  Pitt  v.  Pet- 
way,  34  N.  C.  69;  Guyther  r.  Pettijohn,  28 
N.  C.  388,  45  Am.  Dec.  499. 

Ohio. —  Morgan  v.  Hudnell,  52  Ohio  St. 
652,  40  N.  E.  716,  49  Am.  St.  Rep.  741,  27 
L.  R.  A.  862. 

Oklahoma. —  Logan  ■;;.  Oklahoma  Mill  Co., 
14  Okla.  402,  79  Pac.   103. 

Oregon. —  Rosenau  v.  Syring,  25  Oreg.  386, 
35  Pac.  844;  Yamhill  Bridge  Co.  v.  Newly, 
1  Oreg.   173. 

Pennsylvania. —  Bush  r.  Gamble,  127  Pa. 
St.  43,  17  Atl.  865;  Given  v.  Kelly,  85  Pa. 
St.  309;  Coursin's  Appeal,  79  Pa.  St.  220; 
Reep  V.  Wagner,  21  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  268, 
throwing   furniture  of  a  tenant  in  common 


off  of  the  common  realty  which  he  had  been 
occupying  by  the  consent  of  his  cotenanta, 
and  which  he  had  temporarily  left  without 
any  intention  of  abandoning  it. 

South  Carolina. —  Jefcoat  r.  Knotts,  13 
Rich.  50. 

South  Dahota. —  Grigshy  v.  Day,  9  S.  D. 
585,  70  N.  W.  881;  Wood  v.  Steinau,  9  S.  D. 
110,  68  N.  W.  160. 

Tennessee. —  Rains  v.  McNairy,  4  Humphr. 
356,   40   Am.   Dec.    651. 

Texas. —  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Prather, 
75  Tex.  53,  12  S.  W.  969 ;  Roberts  v.  Roberts, 
(Civ.  App.   1907)    99   S.   W.  886. 

Vermont. —  Lewis  v.  Clark,  59  Vt.  363,  8 
AtL  158;  Aiken  v.  Smith,  21  Vt.  172.  See 
also  Bates  v.  Marsh,  33  Vt.  122;  Barton  v. 
Burton,  27  Vt.  93. 

Virginia. —  Lowe  v.  Miller,  3  Gratt.  205, 
46  Am.  Dec.  188,  the  appropriation  of  a 
chattel  destroyed  by  use  to  the  exclusive  use 
of   one   of   the   cotenants   therein. 

Wisconsin, —  Sullivan  v.  Sherry,  111  Wis. 
476,  87  N.  W.  471,  87  Am.  St.  Rep.  890 
(holding  that  where  the  licensee  of  a  tenant 
in  common,  without  consent  of  his  cotenant, 
takes  timber  from  the  common  property, 
appropriating  it  exclusively  to  his  own  use, 
this  amounts  to  ouster  and  wrongful  con- 
version of  the  property  of  the  non-consenting 
cotenant,  and  the  licensee  is  liable  in  tres- 
pass or  trover)  ;  Ashland  Lodge  No.  63, 
I.  0.  O.  F.  r.  Williams,  100  Wis.  223,  75 
N.  W.  954,  69  Am.  St.  Rep.  912;  Wood  v. 
Noack,  84  Wis.  398,  54  N.  W.  785;  Earll  v. 
Stumpf,  56  Wis.  50,  13  N.  W.  701;  Warren 
V.   AUer,    1    Pinn.   479,   44  Am.   Dec.   406. 

Canada. —  Mcintosh  v.  Port  Huron  Petri- 
fied Brick  Co.,  27  Ont.  App.  262  (where  the 
removal  of  a  brick-making  machine  from  the 
jurisdiction  by  tenants  in  common  was  held 
sufficient  ground  for  an  action  for  conver- 
sion of  the  interest  of  a  cotenant  therein)  ; 
McLellan  r.  McDougall,  28  Nova  Scotia  237; 
Brady  i:  Arnold,  19  U.  C.  C.  P.  42;  Rathwell 
l\  Rathwell,  26  U.  C.  Q.  B.  179;  Culver  v. 
Macklem,   11  U.  C.  Q.  B.  513. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  109  et  seq. 

Forcible  entry  and  detainer. —  An  action 
has  been  maintained  between  tenants  in  com- 
mon for  forcible  entry  and  detainer.  Pres- 
brey  v.  Presbrey,  13  Allen  (Mass.)  281. 
But  such  'action  is  not  maintainable  before 
severance  or  partition.  Lick  v.  O'Donnell, 
3  Cal.  59,  58  Am.  Dec.  383.  And  in  unlaw- 
ful detainer  there  can  be  no  decree  or  judg- 
ment of  restitution  and  possession  as  against 
a  cotenant  in  the  absence  of  evidence  that 
defendant  denies  or  refuses  any  of  plaintilT's 
rights.  Lee  Chuck  r.  Quan  Wo  Chong,  91 
Cal.  593,  28  Pac.  45.  See,  generally.  Forcible 
Entry  and  Detainer,  19  Cyc.   1141. 

No  demand  is  necessary  before  bringing 
action  in  a  suit  where  one  is  guilty  of  con- 
version. Williams  v.  Rogers,  110  Mich.  418, 
68  N.  W.  240.  Thus  in  the  absence  of  statu- 
tory requirements  no  demand  need  be  alleged 

[III,  J,  3,  a] 


86     [38  Cyc] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


a  tort  action  against  his  cotenants  in  the  absence  of  statute  or  agreement  to  the 
contrary,  or  of  some  act  of  destruction  of  the  common  property,  or  acts  equivalent 
thereto,  or  a  hostile  appropriation  of  the  common  property  by  or  through  cotenants 
less  than  the  whole  number  thereof,  so  as  to  exclude,  destroy,  or  ignore  the  interests 
of  their  fellows  therein; '"  and  actions  in  tort,  such  as  trover,  are  generally  not 


against  a  tort-feasing  cotenant  in  an  action 
against  him  by  his  cotenants  for  cutting 
timber  on  the  common  property.  Mooers  v. 
Bunker,  29  N.  H.  420. 

Changing  the  form  of  the  common  prop- 
erty in  order  to  put  it  to  its  general  and 
profitable  application  is  not  such  destruc- 
tion thereof  as  to  create  a  right  of  action 
between  tenants  in  common.  Fennings  v. 
Grenville,  1  Taunt.  241,  9  Rev.  Rep.  760. 
But  see  Redington  a  Chase,  44  N.  H.  36,  82 
Am.  Dec.  189. 

Use  on  sale  of  hay  as  ground  for  trover 
see  Lewis  v.  Clark,  59  Vt.  363,  8  Atl.  158. 

A  railroad  company  entering  upon  and  ap- 
propriating land  by  consent  of  one  cotenant 
therein  only  is  liable  to  the  other  cotenant 
for  trespass.  Rush  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  57  Iowa  201,  10  N.  W.  628. 

76.  Alabama. — Smith  i-.  Rice,  56  Ala.  417; 
Perminter  v.  Kelly,  18  Ala.  716,  54  Am.  Dec. 
177.  See  also  Moore  v.  Walker,  124  Ala. 
199,  26  So.  984,  holding  that  trover  cannot  be 
maintained  by  a  tenant  in  common  against 
his  cotenants  for  a  thing  still  in  his  posses- 
sion. 

A.rhansas. —  Bertrand  v.  Taylor,  32  Ark. 
470. 

California: — Lee  Chuck  v.  Quan  Wo  Chong, 
91  Cal.  593,  28  Pac.  45;  Williams  v.  Chad- 
bourne,  6   Cal.  559. 

Colorado. —  Omaha,  etc.,  Smelting,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  Tabor,  13  Colo.  41,  21  Pac.  925,  16  Am.  St. 
Rep.    185,  5  L.   R.   A.   236. 

Connecticut.  —  Newell  v.  Woodruff,  30 
Conn.  492;   Webb  v.  Danforth,  1  Day  301. 

Georgia. —  Glynn  County  Bd.  of  Education 
V.  Day,  128  Ga.  156,  57  S.  E.  359;  Hall  ;;. 
Page,  4  6a.  428,  48  Am.  Dec.  235. 

Illinois. —  Murray  v.  Haverty,  70  111.  318; 
Swartwout  u.  Evan  a,  37  111.  442;  Benjamin 
V.   Stremple,   13  111.   466. 

Iowa. —  See  Maxwell  v.  Wilson,  76  Iowa 
31,  39  N.  W.  926. 

Kansas. —  Smith-McCord  Dry-Goods  Co.  v. 
Burke,  63  Kan.  740,  66  Pac.  1036,  holding 
replevin  not  maintainable  against  cotenant  or 
the  joint  agent  of  the  tenants  in  common. 

Kentucky. —  Roberta  v.  McGraw,  11  Bush 
26;  Fightmaster  v.  Beasly,  7  J.  -J.  Marsh. 
410;  Bell  r.  Layman,  1  T.  B.  Mon.  39,  15 
Am.  Dec.  83;  Chinn  i\  Respass,  1  T.  B.  Mon. 
25;  Lewis  i".  Night,  3  Litt.  223;  Carlyle  v. 
Patterson,  3  Bibb  93. 

Louisiana. —  A.  Wilbert's  Sons  Lumber, 
etc.,  Co.  r.  Patureau,  44  La.  Ann.  355,  10 
So.  782. 

Maine. —  Estey  v.  Boardman,  61  Me.  595; 
Kilgore  v.  Wood,  56  Me.  150,-96  Am.  Dec. 
404;  Boobier  f.  Boobier,  39  Me.  406;  Wheeler 
v.  Wheeler,  33  Me.  347;  Herrin  v.  Eaton,  13 
Me.    193,   29   Am.   Dec.    499. 

Massachusetts. —  Blood  f.  Blood,  110  Mass. 
545 ;  Brightman  v.  Eddy,  97  Mass.  478 ;  Bry. 

[Ill,  J,  3,  a] 


ant  V.  Clifford,  13  Mete.  138;  Reed  f.  How- 
ard, 2  Mete.  36;  Weld  v.  Oliver,  21  Pick. 
559;  Cutting  V.  Rockwood,  2  Pick.  443. 

Michigan. —  McElroy  v.  O'Callaghan,  112 
Mich.  124,  70  N.  W.  441 ;  Clow  f.  Plummer, 
85  Mich.  550,  48  N.  W.  795. 

Minnesota. —  Kean  v.  Connelly,  25  Minn. 
222,  33  Am.  Rep.  458;  Strong  v.  Colter,  13 
Minn.  82. 

Mississippi. —  Hinds  v.  Terry,  Walk.  80. 

Missouri. —  Painter  v.  Painter,  (App.  1910) 
124  S.  W.  561 ;  Kelley  v.  Vandiver,  75  Mo. 
App.  435;  Sheffler  v.  Mudd,  71  Mo.  App.  78; 
Sharp  V.  Benoist,  7   Mo.  App.   534. 

Hew  Hampshire. —  Johnson  v.  Conant,  64 
N.  H.  109,  7  Atl.  116  (holding  that  the  en- 
largement of  a  ledge  for  the  improvement  of 
a  flume,  thus  putting  the  ledge  to  its  only 
beneficial  use,  is  not  such  a  disregard  of  a 
cotenant's  rights  as  to  entitle  him  to  main- 
tain trespass  against  his  cotenants  so  im- 
proving the  property)  ;  Ballou  v.  Hale,  47 
N.  H.  347,  93  Am.  Deo.  438;  Carr  t\  Dodge, 
40  N.  H.  403  (holding  that  there  is  no  action 
of  trover  between  cotenants  in  crops  until 
after  a  separation  or  severance  by  the  par- 
ties, such  conversion  as  goes  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  crops  or  the  entire  exclusion  of 
the  cotenant  from  the  enjoyment  of  his  right 
and  interest  therein). 

Hevj  Jersey. —  Boston  v.  Morris,  25  N.  J.  L. 
173;  Boston  Franklinite  Co.  v.  Condit,  19 
N.    J.   Eq.    394. 

'New  York. —  Gates  v.  Bowers,  169  N.  Y. 
14,  61  N.  E.  993,  88  Am.  St.  Rep.  530; 
Gilman  v.  Gilman,  111  N.  Y.  265,  18  N.  E. 
849;  Hudson  v.  Swan,  83  N.  Y.  552;  Osborn 
V.  Schenck,  83  N.  Y.  201;  Dyckman  v.  Val- 
iente,  42  N.  Y.  549 ;  Hayes  r.  Kerr,  40  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  348,  57  N.  Y.  Suppl.  1114;  Hayes 
V.  Kerr,  40  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  348,  57  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  1114;  Harris  v.  Gregg,  17  N.  Y.  App. 
Div.  210,  45  N.  Y.  Suppl.  364;  Brown  v. 
Burnap,  17  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  129,  45  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  149;  Barrowcliffe  v.  Cummins,  66 
Hun  1,  20  N.  Y.  Suppl.  787;  Benedict  r. 
Howard,  31  Barb.  569;  Tinney  v.  Stebbins, 
28  Barb.  290;  Tyler  v.  Taylor,  8  Barb.  585; 
Stafford  i,-.  Azbell,  8  Misc.  316,  28  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  733  [affirmed  in  155  N.  Y.  669,  49 
N.  E.  1104] ;  Hudson  v.  Swan,  7  Abb.  N.  Cas. 
324  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  83  N.  Y. 
552];  Van  Doren  v.  Baity,  11  Hun  239; 
White  V.  Osborn,  21  Wend.  72;  Farr  ». 
Smith,  9  Wend.  338,  24  Am.  Dec.  162;  Mum- 
ford  i\  McKay,  8  Wend.  442,  24  Am.  Dec. 
34;  Gilbert  v.  Diokerson,  7  Wend.  449,  22 
Am.  Dec.  592;  Hyde  r.  Stone,  7  Wend.  354, 
22  Am.  Dec.  582;  Sheldon  v.  Skinner,  4 
Wend.  525,  21  Am.  Dec.  161;  Mersereau  v. 
Norton,  15  Johns.  179;  Wilson  v.  Reed,  3 
Johns.  175 ;  St.  John  v.  Standring,  2  Johns. 
468.  Compare  Knope  v.  Nunn,  151  N.  Y. 
506,  45  N.  E.  940,  56  Am.  St.  Rep.  642. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[88  Cye.J     87 


maintainable  between  tenants  in  common,  whilst  the  common  property  is  still 
in  possession  of  either  of  them  by  virtue  of  his  cotenancy  therein."  But  this 
rule  does  not  apply  where  the  right  exists  in  the  respective  tenants  in  common 
to  take  or  demand  their  respective  shares  of  the  common  personal  property  because 
it  is  alike  in  quality  and  value  and  readily  divisible  by  tale,  measurement,  or 
weight,  and  one  tenant  in  common  therein  takes  his  share  thereof  without  his 
cotenant's  consent  or  makes  due  demand  for  his  respective  share  therein  and  is 
refused;  or  where  a  division  of  the  common  personal  property  has  been  made 
according  to  the  respective  interests  of  the  cotenants  therein,  and  one  cotenant 
takes  all  of  the  common  personal  property  thus  divided  and  refuses  to  deliver  to 
his  cotenant  his  share,  if  the  existence  of  all  the  conditions  requisite  to  such  a 


Horth  Carolina. —  Thompson  i".  Silver- 
thorne,  142  N.  C.  12,  54  S.  E.  782,  115  Am. 
St.  Rep.  727;  Shearin  v.  Riggsbee,  97  N.  C. 
216,  1  S.  B.  770;  Grim  r.  Wicker,  80  N.  C. 
343;  Cain  v.  Wright,  50  N.  C.  282,  72  Am. 
Dec.  551;  Pitt  v.  Petway,  34  N.  C.  69  (hold- 
ing that,  although  selling  and  taking  out  of 
the  state  may  be  equivalent  to  "  destruc- 
tion," nevertheless  selling  and  keeping  in  the 
state  is  not  equivalent  to  destruction)  ;  Bon- 
ner V.  Latham,  23  N.  C.  271;  Lucas  v.  Was- 
son,  14  N.  C.  398,  24  Am.  Dec.  266;  Camp- 
bell V.  Campbell,  6  N.  C.  65. 

Oregon. —  Yamhill  Bridge  Co.  v.  Newby,  1 
Oreg.  173. 

Pennsylvania. —  Heller  v.  Hufsmith,  102 
Pa.  St.  533;  Walworth  v.  Abel,  52  Pa.  St. 
370;  Blewett  v.  Coleman,  40  Pa.  St.  45;  Ben- 
net  V.  Bullock,  35  Pa.  St.  364;  Keisel  ». 
Earnest,  21  Pa.  St.  90;  Agnew  v.  Johnson, 
17  Pa.  St.  373,  55  Am.  Dec.  565. 

South  Carolina. —  Gibson  t".  Vaughn,  2 
Bailey  389,  23  Am.  Dec.  143  (holding  that 
no  action  of  trespass  lies  between  cotenants 
for  the  mere  removal  of  a  fixture  from  the 
common  land)  ;  Martin  v.  Quattlebam,  3  Mc- 
Cord  205. 

South  Dakota. —  Grigsby  v.  Day,  9  S.  D. 
685,  70  N.  W.  881. 

Tennessee. —  Cowan  v.  Buyers,  Cooke  53,  5 
Am.  Dec.   668.     See  also  Rains  v.  McNairy, 

4  HUmphr.  356,  40  Am.  Dec.  651. 

Texas. —  Eastham  v.  Sims,  11  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  133,  32  S.  W.  359 ;  Worsham  v.  Vignal, 

5  Tex.  Civ.  App.  471,  24  S.  W.  562. 
Vermont. —  Deavitt   v.    Ring,    73   Vt.    298, 

50  Atl.  1066;  Kane  v.  Garfield,  60  Vt.  79, 
13  Atl.  800;  Lewis  v.  Clark,  59  Vt.  363,  8 
Atl.  158;  Spaulding  v.  Orcutt,  56  Vt.  218; 
Turner  v.  Waldo,  40  Vt.  51;  Wait  ».  Rich- 
ardson, 33  Vt.  190,  78  Am.  Dec.  622;  Barton 
V.  Burton,  27  Vt.  93;  White  v.  Morton,  22 
Vt.  15,  52  Am.  Dec.  75;  Bradley  i:  Arnold, 
16  Vt.  382;  Sanborn  v.  Morrill,  15  Vt.  700, 
40  Am.  Dec.  701;  Hurd  v.  Darling,  14  Vt. 
214;  Owen  v.  Foster,  13  Vt.  263;.  Booth  v. 
Adams,  11  Vt.  156,  34  Am.  Deo.  680;  Ladd 
V.  Hill,  4  Vt.  164. 

Wisconsin. —  Earll  v.  Stumpf,  56  Wis.  50, 
13  N.  W.  701;  McKinley  f.  Weber,  37  Wis. 
279;  Bulger  v.  Woods,  3  Pinn.  460;  Warren 
V.  AUer,  1  Pinn.  479,  44  Am.  Dec.  406. 

United  States. —  Bohlen  v.  Arthurs,  115 
V.  S.  482,  6  S.  Ct.  114,  29  L.  ed.  454;  Gold- 
smith V.  Smith,  21  Fed.  611. 


England. —  Jacobs  v.  Seward,  L.  R.  5  H.  L. 
464,  41  L.  J.  C.  P.  221,  27  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
185  [affirming  18  Wkly.  Rep.  953];  Job  v. 
Potton,  L.  R.  20  Eq.  84,  44  L.  J.  Ch.  262,  32 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  110,  23  WIdy.  Rep.  588;  Bar- 
ton f.  Williams,  5  B.  &  Aid.  395,  7  E.  C.  L. 
219,  106  Eng.  Reprint  1235;  Heath  v.  Hub- 
bard, 4  East  110,  4  Esp.  205,  102  Eng.  Re- 
print 771;  Farrar  v.  Beswick,  5  L.  J.  Exch. 
225,  1  M.  &  W.  682,  Tyrw.  &  G.  1053;  Hay- 
wood V.  Daviea,  1  Salk.  4,  91  Eng.  Reprint  4; 
Martyn  v.  Knowllys,  8  T.  R.  145,  101  Eng. 
Reprint  1313. 

Canada. — Wiggins  v.  White,  2  N.  Brunsw. 
97;  Brittain  v.  Parker,  12  Nova  Scotia  589; 
Elliott  V.  Smith,  3  Nova  Scotia  338;  Brady 
V.  Arnold,  19  U.  C.  C.  P.  42;  Rathwell  v. 
Rathwell,  26  U.  C.  Q.  B.  179;  Culver  c. 
Macklem,  U  U.  C.  Q.  B.  513;  Petrie  v.  Tay- 
lor, 3  U.  C.  Q.  B.  457.  Compare  Freeman  v. 
Morton,  3  Nova  Scotia  340. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  100  et  seq. 

Sale  of  common  property. —  One  tenant  in 
common  of  personal  property  is  not  liable  in 
an  action  of  trover  at  the  suit  of  his  co- 
tenant  for  selling  the  common  property. 
Olin  V.  Martell,  83  Vt.   130,  74  Atl.  1060. 

77.  Alaiama. —  Moore  v.  Walker,  124  Ala. 
199,  26  So.  984;  Perminter  i,-.  Kelly,  18  Ala. 
716,  54  Am.  Dec.  177. 

Connecticut. —  Harris  v.  Ansonia,  73  Conn. 
359,  47  Atl.  672. 

Kansas. —  Smith-McCord  Dry-Goods  Co.  v. 
Burke,  63  Kan.  740,  66  Pac.  1036. 

Maine. —  Carter  v.  Bailey,  64  Me.  458,  18 
Am.  Rep.  273;  Estey  r.  Boardman,  61  Me. 
595 ;  Dain  v.  Cowing,  22  Me.  347,  39  Am.  Dec. 
585. 

Massachusetts. — Weld  v.  Oliver,  21  Pick. 
559. 

Michigan. —  Parke  v.  Nixon,  141  Mich.  267, 
104  N.  W.  597.  See  also  Clow  v.  Plummer, 
85  Mich.  550,  48  N.  W.  795 ;  Aldine  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  Barnard,  84  Mich.  632,  48  N.  W.  280. 

Minnesota. —  Strong  v.  Colter,  13  Minn.  82. 

New  Jersey. —  Roston  v.  Morris,  25  N.  J.  L. 
173. 

New  York. —  Osborn  i:  Schenck,  83  N.  Y. 
201 ;  Rodermund  c.  Clark,  46  N.  Y.  354 ;  Gil- 
bert V.  Dickerson,  7  Wend.  449,  22  Am.  Dec. 
592;  Hyde  v.  Stone,  9  Cow.  230,  18'  Am.  Deo. 
501 ;  Wilson  v.  Reed,  3  Johns.  175. 

North  Carolina. —  Shearin  v.  Riffgsbee,  97 
N.  C.  216,  1  S.  E.  770. 

[Ill,  J,  3,  a] 


88     [38  Cye.J 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


right  of  division  be  shown; '^  and  after  severance  and  retention  of  all  of  the 
subject-matter  thereof  by  one  of  the  parties,  trover  may  be  maintained  against 
him  if  he  wrongfully  withholds  the  share  of  the  demandant,  because  his 
possession  is  merely  that  of  bailee.'"  Even  though  trees  cut  by  one  cotenant 
of  land  without  the  consent  of  the  others  become  personal  property  on  being  so 
severed,  they  nevertheless  remain  the  property  of  the  cotenants ;  and  one  of  them 
converting  the  logs  is  liable  to  his  cotenants  for  the  conversion,  as  in  the  case 
of  other  personal  property.*"  No  action  of  trover  can  be  maintained  for  the 
selling  of  personal  property  owned  in  common,  either  against  its  vendor  or  vendee, 
where  the  vendor  was  a  tenant  in  common  therein  duly  authorized  to  sell,*^  and 
an  action  is  not  maintainable  between  tenants  in  common  to  recover  an  interest 
in  an  article  manufactured  from  part  of  the  materials  or  property  that  had  been 
owned  in  common  by  plaintiff  and  defendant,  and  converted  by  the  latter,  where 
the  character  or  identity  of  the  original  article  has  been  lost.'^ 

b.  For  Crops  and  Timber.  The  general  rule  is  that  one  tenant  in  common 
cannot  maintain  trespass  or  trover  against  his  cotenants  in  crops,  until  after  a 
separation  or  severance  thereof  or  untU  after  such  a  conversion  thereof  as  goes  to 
their  destruction,  or  the  exclusion  of  the  complainant  from  the  enjoyment  of  his 
right  and  interest  therein.*^  The  application  of  the  rule,  however,  has  not  been 
uniform;  the  several  cases  taking  different  views  in  relation  to  acts  in  the  prem- 
ises, and  some  of  them  decided  directly  under  statutes,  and  others  ruled  by  the 
special  circumstances  of  the  particular  cases,  have  allowed  trover  or  trespass  to 


Pennsylvania. —  Keisel  v.  Earnest,  21  Pa. 
St.  90. 

Vermont. —  Spaulding  v.  Orcutt,  56  Vt. 
218. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  65  et  seg. 

Where  the  bailee  of  hypothecated  stock  be- 
came a  tenant  therein  before  suit,  an  action 
by  a  cotenant  therein  in  replevin  could  not 
be  maintained  against  him.  Baxrowcliffe  v. 
Oummins,  66  Hun  (N.  Y.)  1,  20  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
787. 

78.  California. — Adams  v.  Thornton,  5  Cal. 
App.  455,  90  Pac.  713. 

Maine. — Weeks  r.  Hackett,  104  Me.  264, 
71  Atl.  858,  129  Am.  St.  Rep.  390,  19  L.  E.  A. 
N.  S.   1201. 

Michigan. —  Loomis  v.  O'Neal,  73  Mich. 
582,  41  N.  W.  701. 

New  Hawpshire. — ■  Pickering  v.  Moore,  67 
N.  H.  533,  32  Atl.  828',  68  Am.  St.  Rep.  695, 
31  L.  E.  A.  698. 

New  Yorfc.— Stall  f.  Wilbur,  77  N.  Y.  158; 
Channon  v.  Lusk,  2  Lans.  211;  Fobea  v.  Shat- 
tuck,  22  Barb.  568;  Lobdell  v.  Stowell,  37 
How.  Pr.  88  [affirmed  in  51  N".  Y.  70].  See 
also  McCarthy  v.  McCarthy,  40  Misc.  180,  81 
N.  Y.  Suppl.  660. 

Utah. —  Manti  City  S'av.  Bank  v.  Peterson, 
33  Utah  209,  93  Pac.  566,  126  Am.  St.  Eep. 
817. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  701  et  seq. 

Wool  from  a  whole  flock,  not  shown  to  be 
of  one  grade,  is  not  property  such  as  is  read- 
ily divisible  in  portions  absolutely  alike  in 
quality  and  value,  and  its  retention  therefore 
by  one  or  two  joint  owners  of  it  does  not 
necessarily  constitute  a  conversion.  Dear  v. 
Eeed,  37  Hun  (N.  Y.)  594. 

Under  a  statute  providing  that  cotenants 

[III,  J,  3,  a] 


may  maintain  actions  against  each  other  for 
their  respective  shares  of  easily  divisible 
property  after  a  demand  in  writing,  demand 
and  refusal  is  suificient  for  the  bringing  of 
an  action,  without  the  destruction  of  the 
common  property  or  a  conversion  thereof  to 
defendant's  own  use.  Wood  v.  Noack,  84 
Wis.  398,  54  N.  W.  785. 

79.  Piquet  v.  Allison,  12  Mich.  328,  86 
Am.  Dec.  64;  Lobdell  v.  Stowell,  51  N.  Y. 
70;  Seldon  v.  Hickock,  2  Cai.    (N.  Y.)    166. 

80.  Shepard  r.  Pettit,  30  Minn.  119,  14 
N.  W.  511;  Hinson  v.  Hinson,  120  N.  C.  400, 
27  S.  E.  80;  Walker  f.  Humbert,  55  Pa.  St. 
407;  Brittain  v.  Parker,  12  Nova  Scotia  589. 

81.  Hewlett  v.  Owens,  51   Cal.  570. 

83.  Redington  i:  Chase,  44  N.  H.  36,  82 
Am.  Dec.  189;  Andrew  v.  New  Jersey  Steam- 
boat Co.,  11  Hun  (N.  Y.)  490. 

83.  New  Hampshire. —  Carr  v.  Dodge,  40 
N.  H.  403. 

New  Jersey. —  Boston  v.  Morris,  25  N.  J.  L. 
173. 

North  Carolina. —  Shearin  v.  Eiggsbee,  97 
N.  C.  216,  1  S.  E.  770. 

Pennsylvania. —  Keisel  v.  Earnest,  21  Pa. 
St.  90. 

Vermont. —  Deavitt  v.  Ring,  73  Vt.  298,  50 
Atl.  1066. 

Canada. — -Brady  v.  Arnold,  19  U.  C.  C  P 
42;  Eathwell  v.  Eathwell,  26  U.  C.  Q.  B. 
179;  Wemp  v.  Mormon,  2  U.  C.  Q.  B.  146. 

Grass  growing  on  the  land  when  severed  by 
one  tenant  is  not  governed  by  the  same  rule 
as  other  crops,  it  not  being  the  product  of 
his  labor,  and  the  severance  from  the  soil 
gives  him  no  title  to  the  hay  on  which  he 
may  recover  in  trover  against  a  cotenant. 
Le  Barren  v.  Babcock,  46  Hun  (N.  Y.)  598 
[affirmed  in  122  N.  Y.  153,  25  N.  E.  253,  19 
Am.  St.  Rep.  488,  9  L.  R.  A.  625]. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc]     89 


be  brought.^  The  respective  shares  of  grain,  where  they  can  be  easily  deter- 
mined by  weight  or  measure,  may  be  severed,  taken,  and  sold  by  the  respective 
owners  thereof;  but  if  a  tenant  in  common  takes  all  of  the  common  property  and 
deprives  his  cotenants  of  its  use  or  benefit,  or  a  stranger  so  takes  the  common 
property  or  negligently  destroys  it,  it  amounts  to  conversion,  and  trover  will 
lie,^^  either  as  against  a  cotenant  or  a  purchaser  from  the  cotenant;  ^°  and  under 
extraordinary  circumstances  an  injunction  may  lie.'^  The  complaining  cotenant 
may,  however,  waive  the  tort  and  bring  assumpsit.^^  Where  a  tenant  in  common, 
after  a  division  of  a  crop  of  fruit,  carried  away  the  entire  crop  and  refused  to 
divide  it  with  his  cotenants,  replevin  is  maintainable.*" 

e.  Waste.    Acts  by  less  than  all  of  the  cotenants  that  go  to  the  destruction 
or  to  the  permanent  injury  of  the  property  constitute  waste, °°  for  which  they 


84.  Alabama. —  Sullivan  v.  Lawler,  72  Ala. 
74. 

Massachusetts. —  Delaney  v.  Root,  99  Mass. 
546,  97  Am.  Dee.  52. 

Nebraska.— 'Reed  v.  McEill,  41  N"ebr.  206, 
59  N.  W.  775. 

New  Hampshire. —  Ballou  v.  Hale,  47  N.  H. 
347,  93  Am.  Dec.  438. 

New  York. —  Le  Barren  r.  Babeock,  46  Hun 
598  [affirmed  in  122  N.  Y.  153,  25  N.  E. 
253,  19  Am.  St.  Eep.  488,  9  L.  E.  A.  625]; 
Channon  v.  Lusk,  2  Lans.  211;  Lobdell  v, 
Stowell,  37  How.  Pr.  88  [affirmed  in  51  N.  Y. 
70]. 

Vermont. —  Lewis  v.  Clark,  59  Vt.  363,  8 
Atl.  158. 

Canada. —  McLellan  v.  McDougall,  28  Nova 
Scotia  237;  Brady  v.  Arnold,  19  U.  C.  C.  P. 
42;  Culver  r.  Macklem,  11  U.  C.  Q.  B.  513. 

So  where  timber  is  unlawfully  cut  and  re- 
moved.—  Clow  r.  Plummer,  85  Mich.  550,  48 
N.  W.  795.  See  also  Trout  v.  Kennedy,  47 
Pa.  St.  387;  Wilson  v.  Reed,  3  Johns.  (N.  Y.) 
175.  The  liability  of  a  tenant  in  common  of 
land,  valuable  for  its  timber,  who  cuts  the 
timber,  believing  he  was  the  owner  of  all  of  it, 
is  for  th«  value  of  the  share  of  the  other  ten- 
ant of  the  timber  in  the  tree  at  the  time  it 
was  cut,  with  interest.  Paepcke-Leicht  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Collins,  85  Ark.  414,  108  S.  W.  511. 

For  merely  reaping  and  harvesting,  tres- 
pass or  trover  cannot  be  brought.  Jacobs  v. 
Seward,  L.  K.  5  H.  L.  464,  41  L.  J.  C.  P.  221, 
27  L.  T.  Eep.  N.  S.  185  [affirming  18  Wkly. 
Eep.  953] ;  Brady  v.  Arnold,  19  U.  C.  C.  P. 
42;  Culver  v.  Macklem,  11  U.  C.  Q.  B.  613. 

Animals  damage  feasant. — A  tenant  in 
common  has  been  permitted  to  maintain  an 
action  of  case  against  his  cotenants  for  al- 
lowing his  animals  to  run  at  large  and  dam- 
age crops.    McGehee  v.  Peterson,  57  Ala.  333. 

8.5.  Arthur  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61 
Iowa  648,  17  N.  W.  24;  Hall  v.  Pillsbury,  43 
Minn.  33,  44  N.  W.  673,  19  Am.  St.  Rep. 
209,  7  L.  R.  A.  529 ;  Harris  v.  Gregg,  17  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  210,  45  N.  Y.  Suppl.  364;  Channon 
V.  Lusk,  2  Lans.  (N.  Y.)  211;  Nowlen  v. 
Colt,  6  Hill  (N.  Y.)  461,  41  Am.  Dec.  756; 
Adams  v.  Meyers,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  62,  1  Sawy. 
306. 

If  grain  be  delivered  at  the  storehouse  of 
a  stranger,  merely  for  the  purpose  of  deliver- 
ing it  and  not  for  the  purpose  of  its  storage 
with  other  grain,  then  such  storage  without 
the  knowledge   or   consent  of  the  owner   so 


delivering  it  does  not  make  him  a  tenant  in, 
common  in  the  whole  mass  of  grain  after  its 
confusion;  and  he  may  sue  after  demand  and 
refusal,  for  its  restoration  to  him  or  for  its 
conversion.  Morgan  V.  Gregg,  46  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)    183. 

Refusal  to  sever. — A  cotenant  in  a  crop  may 
be  entitled  to  severance,  and  a  refusal  to 
sever  may  give  a  good  cause  of  action. 
Piquet  V.  Allison,  12  Mich.  328,  86  Am.  Dec.  54. 

86.  Brown  v.  Wellington,  106  Mass.  318,  8 
Am.  Rep.  330;  Logan  v.  Oklahoma  Mill  Co., 
14  Okla.  402,  79  Pac.  103. 

87.  Bates  v.  Martin,  12  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.) 
490.     See,  generally,  infra,  III,  J,  4,  b. 

88.  Loomis  f.  O'Neal,  73  Mich.  582,  41 
N.  W.  701.  And  see,  generally,  supra,  III, 
J,  2,  a. 

89.  Adams  r.  Thornton,  5  Cal.  App.  455, 
90  Pac.  713;  Hall  v.  Pillsbury,  43  Minn.  33, 
44  N.  W.  673,  19  Am.  St.  Rep.  209,  7  L.  R.  A. 
529;  Nowlen  v.  Colt,  6  Hill  (N.  Y.)  461,  41 
Am.  Dec.  756;  Adams  v.  Meyers,  1  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  62,  1  Sawy.  306. 

90.  Nevels  v.  Kentucky  Lumber  Co.,  108 
Ky.  550,  56  S.  W.  969,  22  Ky.  L.  Rep.  247, 
94  Am.  St.  Rep.  388,  4'9  L.  R.  A.  416 ;  Shep- 
ard  V.  Pettit,  30  Minn.  119,  14  N.  W.  511; 
Dodd  V.  Watson,  57  N.  C.  48,  72  Am.  Dec. 
677. 

Mining. — An  action  for  waste  or  in  the 
nature  of  waste  may  be  maintainable  for  the 
penetration  and  opening  of  the  soil,  although 
it  is  not  waste  to  dig  in  mines  or  pits  al- 
ready opened,  the  produce  of  which  have  be- 
come part  of  the  profit  of  the  land.  Ayotte 
1-.  Nadeau,  32  Mont.  498,  81  Pac.  145;  Cole- 
man's Appeal,  62  Pa.  St.  252;  Heil  -v.  Strong, 
44  Pa.  St.  264;  Williamson  v.  Jones,  43 
W.  Va.  562,  27  S.  E.  411,  64  Am.  St.  Rep. 
891,  38  L.  R.  A.  694;  Tipping  v.  Robbins,  71 
Wis.  507,  37  N.  W.  427. 

Extraction  of  coal  from  land  without  con- 
sent of  the  other  cotenants  as  waste  see  Cecil 
V.  Clark,  44  W.  Va.  659,  30  S.  E.  216;  Job 
f.  Potton,  L.  R.  20  Eq.  84,  44  L.  J.  Ch.  262,  32 
L.  T.  Eep.  N.  S.  110,  23  Wkly.  Rep.  588.  But 
the  mere  working  of,  or  licensing  the  right 
to,  work  a  coal  mine  is  not  waste.  Job  v. 
Potton,  supra. 

The  excavation  and  removal  of  rock  from 
the  common  property  may  constitute  waste. 
Childs  r.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  117  Mo. 
414,  23  S.  W.  373;  Cosgriff  v.  Dewey,  21  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  129,  47  N.  Y.  Suppl.  255  [affirmed 

[III,  J,  3,  e] 


90     [38  Cye.] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


may  be  sued  in  an  action  on  the  case  or  a  statutory  action  of  waste,"  in  which, 
if  the  statute  allows,  double  or  threefold  damages  may  be  recovered.  °^  If  a  tenant 
in  common  has  become  liable  to  his  cotenants  for  damages  for  waste,  they  may 
waive  the  tort  and  require  an  accoimting  at  law  or  in  equity. °^    A  statute,  per- 


in  164  N.  Y.  1,  58  N.  E.  1,  79  Am.  St.  Rep. 
620] ,  Smith  v.  Sliarpe,  44  N.  G.  91,  57  Am. 
Dec.  574. 

Boring  for  petroleum  oil  and  taking  it  from 
the  land  as  waste  see  Williamson  r.  Jones, 
43  W.  Va.  562,  27  S.  E.  411,  64  Am.  St.  Rep. 
891,  38  L.  R.  A.  694;  McDodrill  f.  Pardee, 
etc.,  Lumber  Co.,  40  W.  Va.  564,  21  S.  E. 
878. 

Mill  fixtures. —  Damaging  or  taking  away, 
except  for  the  common  benefit,  saws,  water 
wheels,  and  other  fixtures  in  a  mill  owned 
in  common  is  in  the  nature  of  waste.  Linton 
V.  Wilson,  3  N.  Brunsw.  223.  But  the  taking 
of  fixtures  and  implements  of  a  mill  out  of 
use  for  want  of  repairs,  and  their  temporary 
use  by  one  cotenant  and  the  destruction  of 
some  rotten  timber  belonging  thereto,  by 
him,  is  not  destructive  waste.  Dodd  v.  Wat- 
son, 57  X.  C.  48,  72  Am.  Dec.  577. 

Cutting  down  and  clearing  woodland  to  the 
injury  of  a  cotenant  therein  is  waste  (Novels 
I'.  Kentucky  Lumber  Co.,  108  Ky.  550,  56 
S.  W.  969,  22  Ky.  L.  Rep.  247,  94  Am.  St. 
Rep.  388,  49  L.  R.  A.  416;  Elwell  v.  Burn- 
side,  44  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  447;  Johnson  r.  John- 
son, 2  Hill  Eq.  {S.  C.)  277,  29  Am.  Dec. 
72),  especially  where  one  tenant  in  common 
so  committing  waste  claims  the  whole  of  the 
land  adversely  to  his  cotenants  therein 
(Dodge  f.  Davis,  85  Iowa  77,  52  N.  W.  2). 

Clearing  of  all  the  arable  land  owned  in 
common  and  wearing  it  out  by  a  succession 
of  crops  and  not  leaving  sufficient  timber  to 
repair  fences  are  not  such  injuries  as  the  law 
will  remedy  by  an  action  on  the  case  in  the 
nature  of  waste,  but  that  the  injured  coten- 
ant must  seek  his  remedy  either  by  an  action 
of  account  or  a  bill  in  equity  for  an  account- 
ing. Darden  z.  Cowper,  52  X.  C.  210,  75  Am. 
Dec.  461. 

Removal  of  tort-feasor's  property. —  Unless 
all  of  the  cotenants  concur  in  waste,  a  non- 
concurring  cotenant  will  not  be  restrained 
from  removing  the  tort-feasor's  property  from 
the  land.  Durham,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wawn,  3 
Beav.  119,  4  Jur.  704,  43  Eng.  Ch.  119,  49 
Eng.  Reprint  47. 

91.  Georpia.— Shiels  v.  Stark,  14  Ga.  429. 

Maine. —  Hubbard  x.  Hubbard,  15  Me.  198, 
plaintiff  held  entitled  to  recover  without 
proving  who  the  other  cotenants  were.  See 
also  Moody  v.  Moody,  15  ile.  205,  holding 
that  it  is  no  defense  to  an  action  to  prevent 
the  commission  of  waste  and  to  recover  dam- 
ages by  an  heir  against  his  coheirs  that  the 
whole  of  the  common  property  will  be  re- 
quired to  satisfy  the  claims  of  the  creditors 
of  the  intestate  thereof. 

Minnesota. —  Booth  r.  Sherwood,  12  Minn. 
426,  holding  that  ordinarily  trespass  does  not 
lie  for  misfeasance  on  the  part  of  a  coten- 
ant for  injuries  to  the  common  property,  but 
an  action  on  the  case  may  be  had. 

j\>iy    York. —  Hoolihan    v.    Hoolihan,    193 

[III,  J,  3,  c] 


N.  Y.  197,  85  N.  E.  1103;  Cosgriff  v.  Dewey, 
21  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  129,  47  K.  Y.  Suppl.  255 
[affirmed  in  164  N.  Y.  1,  58  N.  E.  1, 
79  Am.  St.  Rep.  620] ;  Elwell  v.  Burnside,  44 
Barb.  447. 

Xorth  Carolina. —  Hinson  i-.  Hinson,  120 
N.  C.  400,  27  S.  E.  80;  Smith  v.  Sharpe,  44 
N.  C.  91,  57  Am.  Dec.  574. 

South  Carolina. —  Holt  v.  Robertson,  Mc- 
Mull.  Eq.  475.  See  Thompson  v.  Bostick, 
McMull.  Eq.  75. 

Texas. — ^Camoron  v.  Thurmond,  56  Tex.  22. 

Virginia. —  Newman  v.  Newman,  27  Gratt. 
714;  Graham  i:  Pierce,  19  Gratt.  28,  100  Am. 
Dec.  658. 

West  Virginia. —  Hall  v.  Clark,  47  W.  Va. 
402,  35  S.  E.  11;  Williamson  v.  Jones,  43 
W.  Va.  562,  27  S.  E.  411,  64  Am.  St.  Rep. 
891,  38  L.  R.  A.  694;  McDodrill  c.  Pardee, 
etc..  Lumber  Co.,  40  W.  Va.  564,  21  S.  E. 
878. 

Canada. —  Freeman  v.  Morton,  3  Nova 
Scotia  340. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon,"  §   69. 

A  writ  of  estrepement  by  one  tenant  in 
common  against  another  for  the  prevention 
of  the  cutting  and  the  removal  of  timber  from 
the  common  property  may  be  opened  and  de- 
fendant allowed  to  remove  the  timber  under 
proper  security.  Hensel  v.  Wright,  10  Pa. 
Co.  Ct.  416. 

Pajonent  to  one  cotenant  for  waste  com- 
mitted is  a  good  defense  to  an  action  by  the 
other  tenants  in  common  for  such  waste. 
Grossman  i:  Lauber,  29  Ind.  618. 

An  entry,  claiming  title,  is  prima  facie 
evidence  of  a  cotenancy  for  the  purposes  of  an 
action  for  damages  for  cutting  timber  on  the 
land.    Blake  v.  Milliken,  14  N.  H.  213. 

92.  Maine. —  Mills  v.  Richardson,  44  Me. 
79;  Dwinell  v.  Larrabee,  38  Me.  464. 

Massachusetts. —  Jenkins  v.  Wood,  145 
Mass.  494,  14  N.  E.  512,  limiting,  however, 
the  operation  of  the  statute  to  cases  of  known 
and  recognized  tenancies  in  common. 

Michigan. —  Clow  v.  Plummer,  85  Mich. 
550,  48  N.  W.  795. 

Xew  York. —  Hoolihan  v.  Hoolihan,  119 
N.  Y.  App.  Div.  925,  104  N.  Y.  Suppl.  551. 

Pennsylvania. —  Bush  v.  Gamble,  127  Pa 
St.  43,  17  Atl.  865;  Wheeler  v.  Carpenter, 
107  Pa.  St.  271. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §§  68,  69. 

But  see  McCord  v.  Oakland  Quicksilver 
Min.  Co.,  64  Cal.  134,  27  Pac.  863,  49  Am. 
Rep.  686. 

Limitations. —  If  such  statute  provides  for 
the  recovery  of  treble  damages  an  action 
thereunder  is  not  necessarily  within  a  statute 
limiting  actions  for  penalties  to  one  year. 
Adams  r.  Palmer,  6  Gray  (Mass.)  338. 

93.  Darden  v.  Cooper,  52  N.  C.  210,  75  Am 
Dec.  461;   Cecil  v.  Clark,  44  W.  Va.  659,  30 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc]     91 


mitting  suit  between  cotenants  for  waste  and  fixing  the  measure  of  damages, 
authorizes  an  action  for  waste  committed  during  the  cotenancy,  even  though  the 
tenancy  in  common  has  terminated  before  the  institution  of  the  suit."*  If  some 
of  the  cotenants  joining  in  a  suit  for  the  cutting  of  timber  are  estopped  from 
recovering  the  full  penalty  which  they  might  have  recovered  but  for  said  estoppel, 
then  a  verdict  for  less  than  the  full  penalty  is  proper,  since  the  right  of  action 
being  joint,  the  assessment  of  damages  must  be  accordingly."'^  The  ordinary  rule 
of  valuation  in  an  accounting  between  tenants  in  common  as  to  the  removal  of 
timber  by  some  of  them  in  the  absence  of  statute  or  agreement  to  the  contrary 
is  the  value  of  the  timber  while  growing.""  In  an  action  in  the  nature  of  waste 
occasioned  by  abuse  and  misuse  of  property  by  a  cotenant,  and  his  failure  to  make 
tenantable  repairs,  such  improvements  as  defendant  has  made  in  the  nature  of 
general  repairs  should  be  considered  in  estimating  the  amount  of  damages."' 

d.  Ejectment  —  (i)  In  General.  One  tenant  in  common  may  maintain 
ejectment  against  a  cotenant."'  But  such  action  cannot  be  maintained  between 
them  merely  because  one  of  them  is  occupying  more  than  what  would  be  his 
share  of  the  common  property  on  a  division  or  partition  thereof.""    There  must 


S.  E.  216;  MoGahan  r.  Eondout  Nat.  Bank, 
156  U.  S.  218,  15  S.  Ct.  347,  39  L.  ed.  403; 
Brittain  v.  Parker,  12  Nova  Scotia  589.  See 
also  Goodwyn  v.  Spray,  Dick.  667,  21  Eng. 
Reprint  431. 

Mining. — Account  will  also  apply  to  the 
mining  of  lands  or  the  operating  of  oil  wells 
and  the  selling  of  the  produce  thereof  by  a 
tenant  in  common  without  the  consent  of 
the  cotenants  therein,  or  after  they  have  re- 
fused to  join  him  as  well  as  to  other  cases 
of  waste ;  as  the  action  is  not  one  for  the  re- 
covery for  use  and  occupation  but  rather  for 
a  part  of  the  estate  that  has  been  taken  and 
carried  away.  Childs  v.  Kansas  City,  etc., 
E.  Co.,  117  Mo.  414,  23  S.  W.  373;  Switzer  f. 
Switzer,  57  N.  J.  Eq.  421,  41  Atl.  486; 
Abbey  v.  Wheeler,  58  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  451, 
69  N.  Y.  Suppl.  43'2  [reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  170  N.  Y.  122,  62  N.  E.  1074]; 
Cosgriff  V.  Dewey,  21  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  129, 
47  N.  Y.  Suppl.  255  [affirmed  in  164  N.  Y. 
1,  58  N.  E.  1,  79  Am.  St.  Rep.  620] ;  McCabe 
V.  McCabe,  18  Hun  (N.  Y.)  153;  Irvine  v. 
Hanlin,  10  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  219;  Graham 
V.  Pierce,  19  Gratt.  (Va.)  28,  100  Am.  Dec. 
658;  McNeely  v.  South  Penn  Oil  Co.,  58 
W.  Va.  438,  52  S.  E.  480;  Cecil  V.  Clarke, 
49  W.  Va.  459,  39  S.  E.  202;  Curtis  c.  Cole- 
man, 22  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  561.  The  mort- 
gagee of  one  cotenant's  share  in  a  mine 
may  maintain  a  bill  for  an  accounting  against 
his  mortgagor  and  the  other  cotenants 
therein.  Bentley  v.  Bates,  9  L.  J.  Exch.  30, 
4  Jur.  552,  4  Y.  &  C.  182.  Taking  possession 
of  the  common  property  under  a  claim  to  the 
whole  thereof  under  an  execution  sale,  and 
converting  the  products  thereof,  is  sufficient 
ground  for  an  accounting  to  a  prior  mort- 
gagee of  the  remaining  cotenant.  McGahan 
V.  Rondout  Nat.  Bank,  156  U.  S.  218,  15 
S.  Ct.  347,  39  L.  ed.  403. 

A  just  proportion  of  royalty  received  on  a 
lease  of  the  common  property  executed  by 
one  cotenant  for  the  purposes  of  mining  and 
the  removal  of  coal  is  a  proper  measure  of 
damages  for  such  waste.  Cecil  v.  Clark,  44 
W.  Va.  659,  30  S.  E.  216. 


94.  Hoolihan  v.  Hoolihan,  119  N.  Y.  App. 
Div.  925,  104  N.  Y.  Suppl.  551,  holding  that 
a  statute  creating  an  action  of  waste  between 
cotenants  and  permitting  treble  damages  or 
partition  authorizes  such  action  for  waste 
committed  during  the  cotenancy,  even  after 
the  extinguishment  of  plaintiff's  interest  in 
the  land. 

95.  Haley  v.  Taylor,  77  Miss.  867,  28  So. 
752,  78  Am.  St.  Rep.  549. 

96.  Dodge  v.  Davis,  85  Iowa  77,  52  N.  W. 
2.  See  also  Clow  v.  Plummer,  85  Mich.  550, 
48  N.  W.  795;  Walling  v.  Burroughs,  43 
N.  C.  60. 

97.  Bodkin  v.  Arnold,  48  W.  Va.  108,  35 
S.  E.  980. 

98.  Ricks  V.  Pope,  129  N.  C.  52,  39  S.  E. 
638. 

One  tenant  in  common  having  enfeoffed  his 
interest  to  his  cotenant  may  be  ejected  by 
the  latter.  Heatherley  v.  Weston,  2  Wils. 
C.  P.  232,  95  Eng.  Reprint  783. 

Ejectment  may  be  maintained  against  a 
creditor  of  a  cotenant  who  has  levied  upon 
more  than  the  share  of  his  debtor.  Chapman 
v.  Gray,  15  Mass.  439. 

That  plaintiff  can  on  partition  obtain 
satisfaction  of  bis  interests  from  the  re- 
mainder of  the  estate  belonging  to  the  other 
heirs  is  no  defense  in  such  action.  Mahoney 
f.  Middleton,  41  Cal.  41;  Petit  v.  Flint,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  114  Mich.  362,  72  N.  W.  238. 

An  equity  arising  from  the  purchase  of  an 
outstanding  interest  by  a  tenant  in  com- 
mon cannot  be  enforced  in  ejectment.  Retan 
■V.  Sherwood,  120  Mich.  496,  79  N.  W. 
692. 

One  of  several  coparceners  may  bring  eject- 
ment on  her  separate  demise.  Jackson  v. 
Sample,  1  Johns.  Cas.   (N.  Y.)    231. 

Plaintiff  cotenant  unable  to  recover  be- 
cause of  lack  of  suitable  evidence  see 
Llewellyn  r.  Llewellyn,  201  Mo.  303,  100  S.  W. 
40;  Goldsmith  r.  Smith,  21  Fed.  611. 

99.  Lick  V.  O'Donnell,  3  Cal.  59,  58  Am. 
Dec.  383;  Daniel  v.  Daniel,  102  Ga.  181,  23 
S.  E.  167;  Moreira  v.  Schwan,  113  La.  643, 
S7  So.  542. 

[Ill,  J,  3,  d,  (i)] 


92     [38  Cye.] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


be  evidence  of  an  ouster,  or  eviction,  or  of  some  act  equivalent  thereto,  to  support 
the  action,^  and  recovery  may  be  had  only  on  proof  of  actual  ouster,  or  on  evidence 
from  which  the  jury  can  infer  an  actual  ouster.^    Moreover,  to  maintain  the  action, 


1.  California. —  Lee  Chuck  v.  Quan  Wo 
Chong,  91  Cal.  593,  28  Pac.  45;  Owen  v. 
Morton,  24  Cal.  373. 

Colorado. —  See  Mills  v.  Hart,  24  Colo.  505, 
52  Pae.  680,  65  Am.  St.  Rep.  241. 

Connecticut. —  Norris  v.  Sullivan,  47  Conn. 
474;  Newell  v.  Woodruflf,  30  Conn.  492; 
Clark  i:  Vaughan,  3  Conn.  191. 

Florida. —  Gale  v.  Hines,  17  Fla.  773. 

Georgia. —  McCrary  c.  Glover,  100  Ga.  90, 
26  S.  E.  102;  Lawton  r.  Adams,  29  Ga.  273, 
74  Am.  Dec.  59. 

Illinois. —  Graham  v.  Ford,  125  111.  App. 
578. 

Indiana. — Vance  r.  Schroyer,  77  Ind.  501. 

Iowa. —  Stern  v.  Selleck,  136  Iowa  291, 
111  N.  W.  451. 

Kentucky. —  Chiles  i:  Conley,  9  Dana  385. 

Louisiana.— Moreira  v.  Sehwan,  113  La. 
643,  37  So.  542. 

Maine. —  Porter  v.  Hooper,  13  Me.  25,  29 
Am.  Dec.  480;  Cutts  v.  King,  5  Me.  482; 
Williams  v.  Gray,  3  Me.  207,  14  Am.  Dec. 
234. 

Massachusetts, —  King  v.  Dickerman,  11 
Gray  480;  Dewey  v.  Brown,  2  Pick.  387. 

Michigan. —  Gower  v.  Quinlan,  40  Mich. 
572. 

Missouri. —  Llewellyn  v.  Llewellyn,  201  Mo. 
303,  100  S.  W.  40;  Jordon  v.  Surghnor,  107 
Mo.  520,  17  S.  W.  1009. 

Nevada. —  Bullion  Min.  Co.  v.  Croesus 
Gold,  etc.,  Min.  Co.,  2  Nev.  168,  90  Am.  Dec. 
526. 

New  rorfc.— Gilman  c.  Gilman,  111  N.  Y. 
265,  18  N.  E.  849;  Peterson  v.  De  Baun,  36 
N.  Y.  App.  Div.  259,  55  N.  Y.  Suppl.  249; 
Edwards  v.  Bishop,  4  N.  Y.  61 ;  Earnshaw 
V.  Myers,  49  Hun  608,  1  N.  Y.  Suppl.  901; 
Arnot  V.  Beadle,  Lalor  181. 

North  Carolina. —  Jones  r.  Cohen,  82  N.  C. 
75;  Halford  v.  Tetherow,  47  N.  C.  393. 

Oftio.— White  v.  Sayre,  2  Ohio  110. 

South  Carolina. —  Jones  v.  Massey,  14 
S.  C.  292 ;  Jones  v.  Massey,  9  S.  C.  376 ; 
Volentine  r.  Johnson,  1  Hill  Eq.  49. 

Vermont. — Avery  v.  Hall,  50  Vt.  11;  John- 
son V.  Tilden,  5  Vt.  426 ;  Warren  v.  Henshaw, 
2  Aik.  141.  See  House  v.  Fuller,  13  Vt.  165, 
37  Am.  Dec.  580,  where  rule  was  applied 
to  the  case  of  a  disseizor  who  subsequently 
purchased  the  interest  of  one  of  the  tenants 
in  common. 

Washington. — ^Mabie  v.  Whittaker,  10 
Wash.  656,  39  Pac.  172. 

United  States.— Cluj  v.  Field,  115  XJ.  S. 
260,  6  S.  Ct.  36,  29  L.  ed.  375;  Barnitz  v. 
Casey,  7  Cranch  456,  3  L.  ed.  403. 

Canada. — ^Van  Velsor  v.  Hughson,  9  Ont. 
App.  390,  45  U.  C.  Q.  B.  252. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  102. 

Such  as  total  denial  of  plaintifi's  right  of 
possession.  Falconer  v.  Roberts,  88  Mo.  574; 
Jones  V.  De  Lassus,  84  Mo.  541. 

[Ill,  J,  3,  d,  (i)] 


In  ejectment,  if  cotenancy  is  denied  by 
plaintiff,  there  is  no  necessity  for  any 
stronger  proof  of  ouster  than  against  any 
other  party.  Peterson  v.  Laik,  24  Mo.  541, 
69  Am.  Dec.  441. 

After  ratification  of  a  sale  of  land  the 
ratifying  cotenant  is  estopped  -from  main- 
taining ejectment  against  his  cotenant's 
grantee.     Nalle   c.   Thompson,   173   Mo.  595, 

73  S.  W.  599. 

The  possession  of  a  mortgagee  cotenant  will 
be  considered  prima  facie  to  be  by  virtue  of 
the  cotenancy  and  not  under  the  mortgage. 
Mellon  V.  Reed,  114  Pa.  St.  647,  8  Atl.  227. 

One  claiming  under  a  cotenant  by  virtue 
of  the  cotenancy  cannot  set  up  an  adverse 
title  without  any  other  change  in  the  title 
after  partition.  Jackson  i-".  Creal,  13  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)   116. 

Cotenancy  must  be  alleged  and  proved  be- 
fore a  denial  of  rights  or  acts  amounting  to 
an  ouster  can  be  required  of  plaintiff.  Sherin 
■v.  Larson,  28  Minn.  523,  11  N.  w.  70. 

2.  Alabama. —  Foster  v.  Foster,  2  Stew. 
356;  Jones  v.  Perkins,  1  Stew.  512. 

Arkansas. —  Trapnall  v.  Hill,  31  Ark.  345. 

Connecticut. —  Norris  v.  Sullivan,  47  Conn. 
474. 

Georgia. —  Lawton   ;;.  Adams,  29   Ga.  273, 

74  Am.  Dec.  59. 

Indiana. —  Frakes  v.  Elliott,  102  Ind.  47, 
1  N.  E.  195;  Vance  v.  Schroyer,  77  Ind.  501. 

Maryland. —  Hammond  f.  Morrison,  33  Md. 
95. 

Mississippi. —  Corbin  v.  Cannon,  31  Miss. 
570;  Harmon  v.  James,  7  Sm.  &  M.  Ill,  45 
Am.  Dec.  296. 

Missouri. — .Childs  r.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  117  Mo.  414,  23  S.  W.  373;  Falconer  v. 
Roberts,  88  Mo.  574. 

New  Jersey. —  Den  -f.  Bordine,  20  N.  J.  L. 
394. 

New  York. —  North  Greig  Church  v.  John- 
son, 66  Barb.  119;  Clason  v.  Rankin,  1  Duer 
337;  Whiteman  v.  Hyland,  16  N.  Y.  Suppl.  8. 

North  Carolina. —  Johnson  v,  Swain,  44 
N.  C.  335. 

Ohio. —  Penrod  l'.  Danner,  19  Ohio  218. 

Vermont. —  Carpenter  i:  Thayer,  15  Vt. 
552 ;  Johnson  r.  Tilden,  5  Vt.  426. 

Virginia. —  Taylor   v.   Hill,    10   Leigh   457. 

Washington. —  Mabie  v.  Whittaker,  10 
Wash.  656,  39  Pac.  172. 

United  States. —  Barnitz  v.  Casey,  7  Cranch 
456,  3  L.  ed.  403;  Goldsmith  v.  Smith,  21 
Fed.  611. 

England. —  Peaceable  v.  Read,  I  East  569, 
102  Eng.  Reprint  220. 

See  46  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §102. 

Acts  of  ouster  to  support  action  see 
Cameron  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Minn. 
100,  61  N.  W.  814  (the  wrongful  retention 
of  exclusive  possession  after  a  demand  from 
one  tenant  in  common  of  the  other  that  the 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc]     93 


defendant  cotenant  must  be  actually  in  possession.'  Adverse  possession  by  one 
tenant  in  common  against  his  cotenants  for  the  statutory  period  will  bar  his  right 
to  recover  possession.'' 

(ii)  TiTh'E  TO  Support  Action;  Capacity  to  Sue.  In  ejectment 
between  cotenants  plaintiff  must  recover  on  the  strength  of  his  own  title, ^  the 
burden  being  upon  him  to  show  his  own  right  and  title,  and  also  to  rebut  prima 
facie  evidence  of  title  in  defendant,  if  there  be  any."  A  cotenant  in  possession, 
holding  and  claiming  the  common  property  as  his  sole  property  adversely  to  the 
rights  of  his  cotenants  therein  for  a  sufficient  period  for  said  adverse  claim  to 
ripen  into  a  title,  has  a  sufficient  title  to  enable  him  to  subsequently  maintain 
an  action  in  his  own  name  for  the  recovery  of  the  possession  of  said  property.' 
A  valid  agreement  among  cotenants  or  by  their  authority  as  to  occupying  portions 
of  the  common  property  in  severalty  is  binding  until  rescinded,  and  possession 
may  be  recovered  against  a  cotenant  by  ejectment.* 


latter  purchase  and  pay  for  the  interest  of 
said  demandant,  and  refusal  of  the  tenant 
in  common  in  possession  so  to  do)  ;  North 
Greig  OhuTch  v.  Johnson,  66  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
119  (entering  upon  the  common  property 
under  claimi  of  exclusive  ownership,  locking 
the  door  of  a  building  thereon  thus  excluding 
the  cotenants,  and  keeping  possession) ;  Watts 
V.  Owens,  62  Wis.  512,  22  N.  W.  720  (enter- 
ing upon  land  under  a  void  deed  and  setting 
up  adverse  possession  as  against  a  cotenant 
therein ) . 

A  finding  of  demand  and  refusal  to  be  let 
into  possession  does  not  of  itself  amount  to 
the  finding  of  an  ouster.  Carpentier  v.  Men- 
denhall,  28  Cal.  484,  87  Am.  Dec.  135. 

3.  Mahoney  v.  Middleton,  41  Cal.  41 ;  Car- 

Eentier  v.  Mendenhall,  28  Cal.  484,  87  Am. 
"ec.  135 ;  Owen  v.  Morton,  24  Cal.  373 ;  Col- 
lier ■;;.  Oorbett,  15  Cal.  183;  Llewellyn  V. 
Llewellyn,  201  Mo.  303,  100  S.  W.  40;  Earn- 
shaw  V.  Myers,  1  N.  Y.  Suppl.  901;  Wether- 
ington  V.  Williams,  134  N".  C.  276,  46  S.  E. 
728 

4.  Illinois.—  Lavelle  v.  Strobel,  89  111.  370. 
Indiana. —  Doe  r.  McCleary,  2  Ind.  405. 
New    York. —  Fosgate    v.    Herkimer    Mfg., 

etc.,  Co.,  12  Barb.  352  [affirming  9  Barb. 
287] ;  Jackson  f.  Brink,  5  Cow.  483. 

North  Carolina. — ^Mott  v.  Carolina  Land, 
etc.,  Co.,  146  N.  C.  525,  60  S.  E.  423;  Lenoir 
V.  Valley  Eiver  Min.  Co.,  106  N.  C.  473,  11 
S.  E.  516;  Gaylord  v.  Kespass,  92  N.  C.  553. 

Pennsylvania. —  Eider  v.  Maul,  46  Pa.  St. 
3?6. 

Tennessee. —  Marr  v.  Gilliam,  1  Coldw.  488. 

The  defense  that  no  actual  ouster  has  been 
shown  is  only  available  to  a  cotenant.  Arnot 
v.  Beadle,  Lalor   (N.  Y.)    181. 

5.  California. —  Owen  v.  Morton,  24  Cal. 
373. 

Illinois. —  Eischer  v.  Eslaman,  68  111.  78. 

!S"oMsos.— Horner  v.  Ellis,  75  Kan.  675,  90 
Pac.  275,  121  Am.  St.  Eep.  446. 

Missouri. —  Primm   v.   Walker,   38  Mo.  94. 

North  Carolina. —  Den  v.  Cartwright,  15 
N.  C.  487. 

Texas. —  Waggoner  v.  Snody,  (1905)  85 
S.  W.  1134;  Davidson  v.  Wallingford,  88 
Tex.  619,  32  S.  W.  1030. 

One  claiming  by  adverse  possession  has  the 
burden  of  proving  such  claim.  Inglis  v. 
Webb,  117  Ala.  387,  23  So.  125. 


In  a  joint  and  several  suit  by  tenants  in 
common  those  showing  sufficient  title  may 
recover,  although  others  failing  to  show 
sufficient  title  do  not  recover.  Greenfield  v. 
Mclntyre,  112  Ga.  691,  38  S.  E.  44.  But  if 
a  joint  action  is  brought  for  the  recovery 
of  land  and  one  of  plaintiffs  fails  to  show 
title  or  right  of  entry  and  possession,  plain- 
tiffs cannot  recover.  De  Vaughn  v.  McLeroy, 
82  Ga.  687,  10  S.  E.  211. 

An  agreement  that  a  third  person  should 
have  a  portion  of  the  profits  arising  from 
the  sale  of  certain  lands  was  held  to  give 
no  sufficient  rights  to  the  lands  to  maintain 
ejectment,  but  the  third  person  had  only  an 
interest  in  the  proceeds  after  sale.  Seit- 
zinger  v.  Eidgway,  4  Watts  &  S.   (Pa.)   472. 

A  defendant  without  title  cannot  object  in 
an  action  of  trespass  to  try  title  to  said 
action  by  one  showing  title  to  an  undivided 
interest.  Gray  v.  Kauffman,  82  Tex.  65,  17 
S.  W.  513. 

Where  two  only,  of  a  number  of  executors, 
deeded  certain  property  to  a  legatee  under  a 
power  in  the  will  to  the  executors  to  deed 
such  property  to  said  legatee,  it  was  never- 
theless held  that  irrespective  of  the  deed 
such  legatee  was  entitled  to  bring  an  action 
for  possession  against  one  holding  adversely. 
Hall  V.  Haywood,  77  Tex.  4,  13  S.  W.  612. 

An  undivided  interest  in  a  partition  wall 
is  not  sufficient  foundation  for  maintaining 
an  ejectment  suit  against  one  who  placed  a 
building  on  the  half  of  the  land  adjoining 
that  of  plaintiff  on  which  the  wall  stood 
before  its  destruction.  Duncan  t\  Rodecker, 
90  Wis.  1,  62  N.  W.  533;  Stevens  r.  Buggies, 
23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,408,  5  Mason  221. 

6.  Davidson  v.  Wallingford,  88  Tex.  619, 
32  S.  W.  1030. 

7.  Kentucky. —  Eussell  v.  Mark,  3  Mete. 
37. 

Michigan. —  La  Fountain  v.  Dee,  110  Mich. 
347,  68  N.  W.  220;  Highstone  r.  Burdette, 
54  Mich.   329,  20  N.  W.  64. 

Missouri. —  Comstock  v.  Eastwood,  108  Mo. 
41,  18  8.  W.  39. 

New  York. —  Jackson  v.  Whitbeck,  6  Cow. 
632,  16  Am.  Dec.  454. 

Tennessee. —  Marr  v.  Gilliam,  1  Coldw. 
488. 

8.  Throckmorton  v.  Burr,  5  Cal.  400;  Lui 
V.  Kaleikini,   10  Hawaii  391. 

[III.  J,  3,  d,  (II)] 


94     [38  Cye.J 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


(hi)  Demand.  There  is  no  necessity  for  a  prior  demand  of  possession  by 
a  tenant  in  common  where  his  cotenant  takes  a  deed  to  the  whole  estate  and 
claims  it  thereunder,  or  commits  some  act  equivalent  to  an  ouster.*  The 
commencement  of  the  action  is  sufficient  demand.'" 

(iv)  Extent  OF  Recovery ;  Judgment.  Upon  a  finding  for  plaintiff  the 
court  should  define  the  extent  of  plaintiff's  interest/'  and  the  effect  of  judgment 
for  plaintiff  is  to  put  plaintiff  in  possession  with  defendant/^  and  to  entitle  plaintiff 
to  possession  of  his  undivided  portion  of  the  common  property  and  to  his  share 
of  the  mesne  rents  and  profits  if  so  by  statute  provided,  but  not  to  sole  possession 
of  any  specific  portion.'^  He  can  recover  no  more  than  his  own  portion  of  the 
common  estate  where  he  has  not  disseized  his  cotenants,  together  with  such 
further  damages  as  may  be  by  statute  provided,'*  and  his  judgment  must  be 
subject  to  the  rights  of  defendant  cotenants.'^  Under  proper  circumstances 
allowance  or  reimbursement  may  be  made  to  defendant  for  a  proper  proportion 
of  the  money  paid  by  him  while  in  possession  on  account  of  mortgages,  taxes, 
and  interest  on  the  comnlon  property  and  repairs  and  improvements  thereon. '° 
Statutes  permitting  recovery  of  value  for  permanent  improvements  by  defendants 
in  ejectment  apply  to  actions  by  a  cotenant;  and  the  court  will  apportion  expense 
of  improvements  proportionately." 

e.  Trespass  —  (i)  In  General.  In  the  absence  of  statute  or  agreement  to 
the  contrary,  trespass  can  be  maintained  between  cotenants  where,  and  only 
where,  there  has  been  an  ouster."    Where  the  circumstances  warrant,  case  is 


9.  Hebrard  v.  Jefferson  Gold,  etc.,  Min. 
Co.,  33  Cal.  290;  Harrison  v.  Taylor,  33  Mo. 
211,  82  Am.  Dec.  159;  Clark  V:  Crego,  47 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  599;  Aiken  r.  Smith,  21  Vt. 
172;   Johnson  .v.  Tilden,  5  Vt.  426. 

10.  Fenton  r.  Miller,  116  Mich.  45,  74 
N.  W.  384,  72  Am.  St.  Kep.  502. 

11.  Mahoney  v.  Middleton,  41  Cal.  41; 
Lillianskyoldt  i\  Goss,  2  Utah  292;  Marshall 
V.  Palmer,  91  Va.  344,  21  S.  E.  672,  50  Am. 
St.  Rep.  838. 

12.  Withrow  v.  Biggerstaff,  82  N.  C. 
82. 

13.  California. —  Carpentier  v.  Menden- 
hall,  28  Cal.  484,  87  Am.   Dec.   135. 

Georgia. —  Logan  c  Goodall,  42  Ga.  95. 

Kansas. —  King  r.  Hyatt,  51  Kan.  504,  32 
Pac.  1105,  37  Am.  St.  Eep.  304. 

Kentucky. —  Young  v.  Adams,  14  B.  Hon. 
127,  58  Am.  Dec.  654. 

Massachusetts. —  Dewing  v.  Dewing,  165 
Mass.  230,  42  N.  E.  1128;  Backus  r.  Chap- 
man, 111  Mass.  386;  Shepard  v.  Richards, 
2  Gray  424,  61  Am.  Dec.  473. 

Missouri. —  Childs  r.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  (1891)  17  S.  W.  954;  Falconer  v.  Rob- 
erts, 88  Mo.  574. 

NeiD  York. —  Jones  r.  De  Coursey,  12  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  164,  42  N.  Y.  Suppl.  578  [affirmed 
in  161  N.  Y.  627,  55  N.  E.   1096]. 

Rhode  Island. —  Knowles  v.  Harris,  5  R.  I. 
402,  73  Am.  Dec.  77. 

Texas. —  Puckett  v.  McDaniel,  8  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  630,  28  S.  W.  360;  Bennett  v.  Virginia 
Ranch,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  321,  21 
S.  W.  126. 

Vermont. —  Hayden  v.  Merrill,  44  Vt.  336, 
8  Am.  Rep.  372. 

Virginia. —  Marshall  v.  Palmer,  91  Va. 
344,  2'l  S.  E.  672,  50  Am.  St.  Rep.  838. 

United  States.— Cla.j  v.  Field,  115  U.  S. 
260,  6  S.  Ct.  36,  29  L.  ed.  375. 

[Ill,  J,  3,  d,  (ill)] 


See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  115. 

Interest. —  If  the  statute  provides  for  an 
allowance  of  interest  on  retained  money  had 
and  received  for  the  use  of  another,  such 
interest  should  be  allowed.  Armijo  u  Neher, 
11  N.  M.  645,  72  Pac.   12. 

14.  Stevens  i-.  Ruggles,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,408,  5  Mason  221. 

15.  Jones  v.  De  Lassus,  84  Mo.  541 ;  Mar- 
shall V.  Palmer,  91  Va.  344,  21  S.  E.  672, 
50  Am.  St.  Rep.  838. 

16.  Bodkin  i:  Arnold,  48  W.  Va.  108,  35 
S.  E.  980;  Stewart  v.  Stewart,  90  Wis.  516, 
63  N.  W.  886,  48  Am.  St.  Rep.  949.  And  see 
generally  supra,  III,  E,  2. 

Reimbursing  third  person. —  Where  a  third 
person  obtaining  a  deed  covering  the  share 
of  one  tenant  in  common  entered  into  pos- 
session of  the  entire  common  property  and 
made  improvements  thereunder  under  the 
hona  fide  belief  that  he  held  a  good  title 
thereto,  and  subsequently  the  other  cotenant 
brought  ejectment  against  him  for  said  co- 
tenant's  share  and  recovered,  it  was  held  that 
said  third  party  was  entitled  to  be  reim- 
bursed by  plaintiff  so  succeeding.  Strong  v. 
Hunt,  20  Vt.  614. 

17.  Phoenix  Lead  Min.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sydnor, 
39  Wis.  600. 

18.  Alabama. —  Foster  v.  Foster,  2  Stew. 
356;   Jones  v.  Perkins,   1   Stew.  512. 

Kentucky. —  Jones   r.   Chiles,   8   Dana   163. 

Maine. —  Mills  v.  Richardson,  44  Me.  79; 
Duncan  v.  Sylvester,  13  Me.  417,  29  Am. 
Dec.  512  (holding  that  cutting  away,  cast- 
ing off,  or  setting  adrift  cotenants'  fishing 
nets  was  not  a  ground  for  trespass  between 
cotenants)  ;  Porter  r.  Hooper,  13  Me.  25,  29 
Am.  Dec.  480. 

Massachusetts. —  Bennett  V.  Clemence,  6 
Allen   10;   Arnold  v.   Stevens,   1  Meto.  266; 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cye.]     95 


maintainable  between  the  cotenants,"  and  thus  for  indirect  injuries  by  cotenants 
to  the  interest  or  estate  of  a  tenant  in  common  in  the  common  property,  he  usually 
has  his  action  of  case  against  the  tort-feasors;  ^°  but  case  is  held  to  be  not  main- 
tainable for  part  of  the  whole  profits  arising  from  the  common  land,  retained  by 
one  of  the  cotenants  thereof .^^  Trespass  for  mesne  profits  will  lie  between  coten- 
ants." In  an  action  of  trespass  between  tenants  in  common  the  admission  of 
plaintiff's  right  and  an  offer  to  account  is  no  defense.^^ 

(ii)   To  Try  Title.     An  ousted  cotenant  may  determine  his  right  to  pos- 
session in  an  action  of  trespass  to  try  title.^*    In  such  an  action  by  a  tenant  in 


Allen  v.  Carter,  8  Pick.  175;  Keay  v.  Good- 
win, 16  Mass.  1.  See  also  Hunting  v.  Rus- 
sell, 2  Cush.  145. 

liew  Hampshire. —  Boynton  v.  Hodgdon, 
59  N.  H.  247 ;  Thompson  v.  Gerrish,  57  N.  H. 
85 ;  Wood  V.  Griffin,  46  N.  H.  230. 

New  York. —  King  v.  Phillips,  1  Lans.  421; 
Erwin  v.  Olmsted,  7  Cow.  229. 

Pennsylvania. —  Bush  v.  Gamble,  127  Pa. 
St.  43,  17  Atl.  865;  Filbert  v.  Hoff,  42  Pa. 
St.  97,  82  Am.  Dec.  493;  MoGill  v.  Ash,  7 
Jr-a.  St.  397. 

South  Carolina. —  Harman  v.  Gartman, 
Harp.  430,  18  Am.  Dec.  659;  Martin  V:  Quat- 
tlebam,  3  McCord  205. 

Vermont. —  Wait  v.  Richardson,  33  Vt. 
190,  78  Am.  Dec.  622;  Booth  v.  Adams,  11 
Vt.  156,  34  Am.  Dec.  680. 

Canada. —  Freeman  v.  Morton,  3  Nova 
Scotia  340;  Wemp  v.  Mormon,  2  U.  C.  Q.  B. 
146,  holding  that  if  entry  be  made  on  the 
land  of  one  who  is  a  cotenant  with  the  other 
in  the  crops  on  said  land,  the  owner  of  the 
land  cannot  maintain  trespass  against  his 
cotenant  in  the  crop  for  entering  the  land 
merely  to  remove  his  share  of  the  crop. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon,"  §   103. 

Possession  under  a  void  tax  deed  is  not 
sufficient  to  authorize  trespass  as  against 
a  tenant  in  common,  having  the  legal  title 
to  an  undivided  interest  and  hence  entitled 
to  possession.  Todd  v.  Lunt,  148  Mass.  322, 
19  N.  E.  522. 

There  is  no  liability  in  trespass  against 
a  tenant  in  common  who  removes  a  building 
from  the  common  land  erected  without  his 
consent  by  his  cotenant.  Byam  v.  Bickford, 
140  Mass.  31,  2  N.  E.  687;  Eason  v.  May- 
berry,  1  Nova  Scotia  186. 

Trespass  quare  clausum  fregit  cannot  ordi- 
narily be  maintained  between  them.  Jones 
V.  Chiles,  8  Dana  (Ky.)  163;  Duncan  v. 
Sylvester,  13  Me.  417,  29  Am.  Dec.  512;  Wait 
V.  Richardson,  33  Vt.  190,  78  Am.  Dec.  622. 
Thus  the  general  rule  is  that  trespass  quare 
clausum  fregit  or  trover  will  not  lie  between 
cotenants  for  entering  on  land  owned  in  com- 
mon by  them,  and  removing  timber  there- 
from. Kane  v.  Garfield,  60  Vt.  79,  13  Atl. 
800;  Wait  v.  Richardson,  supra.  But  see 
Mills  1/.  Richardson,  44  Me.   79. 

Effect  of  agreement. —  Whether  or  not  an 
agreement  amounting  to  less  than  a  tech- 
nical termination  or  a  technical  severance  of 
the  common  estate  or  a  technical  partition 
thereof  is  sufficient  to  warrant  an  action  of 
trespass  between  the  cotenants  has  been 
variously    determined.      See    McPherson    v. 


Seguine,  14  N.  C.  153,  holding  trespass  not 
maintainable  between  tenants  in  common 
even  after  a  parol  partition.  The  better  rule 
appears  to  be  that  where  there  is  a  lawful 
agreement  between  all  of  the  cotenants  giv- 
ing to  some  of  them  the  right  of  exclusive 
occupation,  possession,  or  enjoyment  of  the 
common  property,  and  such  rights  are  in- 
fringed by  or  under  the  grantors  thereof,  an 
appropriate  action  in  tort  should  be  main- 
tainable, as  if  the  wrong  had  been  committed 
by  a  stranger.  Keay  v.  Goodwin,  16  Mass. 
1;  Turner  v.  Waldo,  40  Vt.  51;  O'Hear  v. 
De  Goesbriand,  33  Vt.  593,  80  Am.  Dec.  653, 
a  severance  in  fact  by  an  agreement  for  sole 
occupation,  where  it  was  held  that  tres- 
pass was  maintainable  for  the  same  acts 
which  would  constitute  trespass  in  a 
stranger. 

19.  McGehee  v.  Peterson,  57  Ala.  333; 
Arthur  v.  Gayle,  38  Ala.  259;  Parke  v. 
KiUiam,  8  Cal.  77,  68  Am.  Dec.  310;  Booth 
V.  Sherwood,  12  Minn.  426  (action  on  the 
case,  in  the  nature  of  waste)  ;  Anders  v. 
Meredith,  20  N.  C.  339,  34  Am.  Dec.  376. 

20.  Odiorne  v.  Lyford,  9  N.  H.  502,  32  Am. 
Dec.  387  (where  one  tenant  in  common  of  a 
mill  property  owned  a  several  estate  below 
said  common  estate  and  erected  a  dam  on 
the  several  estate,  in  consequence  of  which 
the  common  property  was  flooded  to  the 
injury  of  his  cotenant  therein,  and  the 
injured  cotenant  was  permitted  to  maintain 
an  action  on  the  case  in  the  premises)  ; 
Chesley  v.  Thompson,  3  N.  H.  9,  14  Am.  Dec. 
324;  Beach  v.  Child,  13  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  343. 
But  see  Darden  v.  Cowper,  52  N.  C.  210,  75 
Am.  Dec.  461. 

Where  the  common  property  has  been  mis- 
used by  the  wasting  of  the  waters  of  an 
aqueduct  over  and  above  the  proper  share 
of  the  waster  thereof  an  action  on  the  case 
is  maintainable.  McLellan  -v.  Jenness,  43 
Vt.  183,  5  Am.  Rep.  270. 

Where  one  tenant  in  common  allowed  his 
animals  to  run  at  large  and  damage  crops 
on  the  common  property,  case  may  be 
brought.  McGehee  v.  Peterson,  57  Ala.  333; 
Morgan  v.  Hudnell,  52  Ohio  St.  552,  40  N.  E. 
716,  49  Am.  St.  Rep.  741,  27  L.  R.  A.  862. 

21.  Chambers  v.  Chambers,  10  N.  C.  232, 
14  Am.  Dec.  585. 

22.  Wait  V.  Richardson,  33  Vt.  190,  78 
Am.  Dec.  622;  Goodtitle  v.  Tombs,  3  Wils. 
C.  P.  118,  95  Eng.  Reprint  965. 

23.  McGill  V.  Ash,  7  Pa.  St.  397. 

24.  Williams  v.  Sutton,  43  Cal.  65;  Mur- 
ray V.  Stevens,  Rich.  Eq.  Cas.  (S.  C.)  205; 
St.   Louis,  etc.,   R.   Co.  1>.   Prather,   75   Tex. 

[Ill,  J,  3,  e,  (ii)] 


96     [38  Cyc] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


common  against  an  adverse  holder  imder  a  tax  deed,  plaintiff  may  recover  the 
entire  tract  even  though  the  conveyance  to  him  of  his  interest  is  by  a  particular 
description;  "^  but  plaintiffs,  in  trespass  to  try  title,  cannot  recover  the  entire 
property  as  against  a  defendant  who  has  acquired  title  by  adverse  possession 
against  some  of  the  coowners  who  are  not  parties  to  the  suit.^'  If  a  tenant  in 
common  sues  to  recover  the  entire  tract  in  trespass  to  try  title,  his  petition  cannot 
be  taken  as  either  a  repudiation  or  an  afi&rmance  of  his  cotenant's  acts  in  selliag 
portions  of  the  tract  by  metes  and  bounds.^' 

4.  Equitable  Jurisdiction  ^'  —  a.  In  General.  In  matters  concerning  cotenants 
equity  jurisdiction  will  not  attach  excepting  under  some  equitable  principle. 
The  mere  existence  of  the  relation  is  insufficient.^'  If,  however,  some  moving 
principle  is  shown  to  apply,  equity  will  interfere  in  cotenancy  matters  as  in  others,^" 
and  may  specifically  enforce  contracts  ^^  or  cancel  them,^^  and  equity  may  interfere 
in  cases  between  cotenants  in  relation  to  the  purchase  of  outstanding  claims  or  title, 
to  set  aside  deeds  to  third  parties,  and  declare  the  rights  of  the  respective  coten- 
ants; ^'  and  where  a  tenant  in  common  has  sold  the  entire  common  estate  to  an 
absent  stranger,  equity  has  entertained  a  bill  of  a  cotenant  against  the  vendor 
and  the  vendee,  as  an  absent  defendant,  for  the  confirmation  of  the  sale  and  a 
decree  to  plaintiff  for  his  share  of  the  purchase-money;  ^  and  has  entertained 


63,  12  S.  W.  969;  Gilmer  r.  Beauchamp,  40 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  125,  87  S.  W.  907;  Hintze  v. 
Krabbenschmidt  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1897)  44 
S.  W.  38. 

Possession  when  the  trespass  was  com- 
mitted is  essential  to  support  the  action. 
Harvin  l-.  Hodge,  Dudley   (S.  C.)   23. 

By  grantee  by  metes  and  bounds. —  Tres- 
pass to  try  title  may  be  maintained  by  a 
tenant  in  common  asserting  title  by  metes 
and  bounds,  against  one  who  shows  no  title. 
Gray  v.  Kauffman,  82  Tex.  65,  17  S.  W.  513. 

25.  JMcDonald  v.  Hamblen,  78  Tex.  628, 
14  S.  W.  1042. 

26.  Boone  v.  Knox,  80  Tex.  642,  16  S.  W. 
448,  26  Am.  St.  Rep.  767. 

27.  Zimpleman  r.  Power,  38  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
263,  85  S.  W.  69.  See  also  Stubblefield  v. 
Hanson,   (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1906)  94  S.  W.  406. 

28.  Equitable  accounting  see  supra.  III, 
J,  1,  d. 

29.  Alaska. —  Garside  v.  Norval,  1  Alaska 
19. 

Maine. —  Carter  v.  Bailey,  64  Me.  458,  18 
Am.  Rep.  273. 

Massachusetts. — Blood  v.  Blood,  110  Mass. 
545. 

XetD  Jersey. —  Martin  v.  Martin,  (Ch. )  23 
Atl.  822. 

Jiew  York. —  Van  Bergen  v.  Van  Bergen,  3 
Johns.  Ch.  282,  8  Am.  Dec.  511. 

OAto.— Weakly  v.  Hall,  13  Ohio  167,  42 
Am.  Dec.   194. 

Pennsylvania. —  Orbin  i\  Stevens,  13  Pa. 
Super.  Ct.  591. 

South  Carolina. — ^Murray  v.  Stevens,  Rich. 
Eq.  Cas.  205. 

Canada. —  Bates  v.  Martin,  12  Grant  Ch. 
(U.  C.)    490. 

30.  Alabama. —  Johns  v.  Johns,  93  Ala. 
239,  9  So.  419. 

Arkansas. —  Trapnall  r.  Hill,  31  Ark.  345. 

Georgia. —  Smith  v.  King,  50  Ga.   192. 

Massachusetts. —  Field  r.  Craig,  8  Allen 
357;  May  v.  Parker,  12  Pick.  34,  22  Am. 
Dee.  393. 

[Ill,  J,  3,  e,  (n)] 


Vermont. —  Walker   i\    Pierce,    38    Vt.   94. 

Wisconsin. —  Saladin  v.  Kraayvanger,  96 
Wis.  180,  70  N.  W.  1113. 

United  States. —  Union  Mill,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Dangberg,  81  Fed.  73;  Goldsmith  v.  Smith, 
21  Fed.  611. 

A  tender  must  be  made  with  a  bill  in 
equity  to  dissolve  a  cloud  on  title  arising 
from  the  purchase  of  an  outstanding  title  by 
a  cotenant.  Morris  v.  Roseberry,  46  W.  Va. 
24,  32  S.  E.  1019. 

Sale  in  lieu  of  partition. —  Equity  may,  in 
the  absence  of  a  remedy  at  law,  entertain  a 
bill  at  the  instance  of  a  cotenant,  for  the 
sale  of  the  common  property  in  lieu  of  par- 
tition, where  a  partition  is  impracticable  for 
the  purpose  of  making  an  equitable  allow- 
ance out  of  the  proceeds  to  such  complain- 
ant, where  he  has  made  proper  expenditures 
on  the  common  property  for  the  common 
benefit.  Drennen  v.  Walker,  21  Ark.  539; 
Van  Ormer  r.  Harley,  102  Iowa  150,  71 
N.  W.  241 ;  Danforth  v.  Moore,  55  N.  J.  Eq. 
127,  35  Atl.  410. 

Equity  will  not  permit  tenants  in  common 
by  descent  to  assume  a  hostile  attitude  to- 
ward each  other  in  reference  to  the  common 
property,  as  their  relation  is  a  confidential 
one  by  operation  of  law.  Tisdale  v.  Tisdale, 
2  Sneed   (Tenn.)    596,  64  Am.  Dec.  775. 

31.  In  re  Coates  St.,  2  Ashm.  (Pa.)  12, 
holding  that  a  lawful  agreement  for  mutual 
releases  between  cotenants  about  to  make 
partition  will,  even  after  such  partition,  be 
enforced  between  them. 

32.  Sires  v.  Sires,  43  S.  C.  266,  21  S.  E. 
115,  holding  that  an  action  for  the  cancel- 
lation of  a  recorded  deed  under  a  power  in  a 
will,  alleged  to  be  unauthorized,  without 
consideration  and  fraudulent,  may  be  main- 
tained by  cotenants  not  in  possession,  even 
in  the  absence  of  actual  ouster. 

33.  Eads  v.  Retherford,  114  Ind.  273,  16 
N.  E.  587,  5  Am.  St.  Rep.  611;  Mahoney  v. 
iNevins,  190  Mo.  360,  88  S.  W.  731. 

34.  Pollard  v.  Coleman,  4  Call   (Va.)   245. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cye.J     97 


a  bill  by  a  tenant  in  common  in  possession  for  the  establishment  of  boundaries.'^ 
It  may  enforce  an  equitable  lien  to  secure  proper  contribution  for  a  cotenant  who 
has  removed  encumbrances  from  the  common  property  or  otherwise  properly 
expended  moneys  for  the  common  benefit;'"  or  it  may  declare  a  cotenant  so 
expending  moneys  to  be  an  assignee  in  equity  for  the  purpose  of  compelling  con- 
tribution; "  and  if  an  entire  lien  debt  be  due  from  one  cotenant  to  another  the 
latter  may  maintain  foreclosure  proceedings.'*  Equity  will  not  permit  the  pur- 
chase of  an  outstanding  claim  or  title  for  the  purpose  of  defeating  a  cotenant's 
rights  in  the  common  property,  where  fiduciary  relations  or  a  relationship  of 
confidence  is  shown  to  exist  between  them  in  relation  thereto;'"  but  where  a 
tenant  in  common  invokes  equity  against  his  cotenants  to  share  the  benefit  of  the 
purchase  of  an  outstanding  claim  or  to  share  the  benefit  of  a  bargain  in  relation 
to  the  common  property  or  title,  the  complainant  must  show  that  he  has  promptly 
paid  or  tendered  payment  of  his  proportionate  share  of  the  expenses  incident  to 
said  transaction  and  properly  chargeable  to  the  cotenancy,*"  or  that  he  is  ready 
and  willing  within  a  reasonable  time  to  bear  his  share  of  such  expenses.*'  No 
equitable  lien  arising  from  the  purchase  of  an  outstanding  title  applies  in  equity 
against  the  common  property  in  the  hands  of  a  hona  fide  purchaser  for  value, 
without  notice,  where  the  party  seeking  such  lien  has  been  guilty  of  laches  or 
fraud.*^ 

b.  Injunction  *'  —  (i)  In  General.  An  injunction  may  issue  to  restrain  an 
interference  by  a  tenant  in  common  with  his  cotenant's  rights  in  the  enjoyment 
of  the  common  property,  or  the  interference  with  such  rights  by  a  stranger,"  or 
against  the  exercise  of  exclusive  ownership  in  the  premises  without  the  consent 
of  the  cotenants,*^  or  the  threatened  or  continued  breach  of  a  lawful  agreement 
between  the  cotenants.*'    But  jurisdiction  of  equity  in  granting  injunction  is 


35.  Gushing  V.  Miller,  62  N.  H.  517. 

36.  Illinois. —  Titsworth  v.  Stout,  49  111. 
78,  95  Am.  Dec.  577. 

Indiana. —  Moon  v.  Jennings,  119  Ind.  130, 
20  N.  E.  748,  21  N.  E.  471,  12  Am.  St.  Kep. 
383. 

Maine. —  Williams  v.  Coombs,  88  Me.  183, 
33  Atl.  1073. 

Michigan. —  Norris  v.  Hill,  1  Mich.  202. 

Mississippi. —  AUen  v.  Poole,  54  Miss.  323. 

Pennsylvania. —  Richards  v.  Richards,  31 
Pa.  Super.  Ct.  509. 

37.  Green  v.  Walker,  22  R.  I.  14,  45  Atl. 
742. 

38.  Holmes  v.  Holmes,  129  Mich.  412,  89 
N.  W.  47,  95  Am.  St.  Rep.  444;  Burnett  v. 
Ewing,  39  Wash.  45,  80  Pac.  855. 

39.  United  New  Jersey  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Con- 
solidated Fruit  Jar  Co.,  (N.  J.  Ch.  1903)  55 
Atl.  46. 

40.  Kershaw  v.  Simpson,  46  Wash.  313,  89 
Pac.  889;  Spalding  v.  Lewis,  42  Wash.  528, 
85  Pac.  255. 

41.  Niday  v.  Cochran,  42  Tex.  Oiv.  App. 
292,  !)3  S.  W.  1027. 

He  may  be  compelled  to  account  to  his  co- 
tenants  for  his  proportion  of  such  expenses. 
Glos  V.  Clark,  97  111.  App.  609  \:re'aersed  on 
other  grounds  in  199  111.  147,  65  N.  E.  135] ; 
Arey  v.  Hall,  81  Me.  17,  16  Atl.  302,  10  Am. 
St.  Rep.  232. 

42.  Ryason  v.  Dunten,  164  Ind.  85,  73 
N.  E.  74. 

43.  To  restrain  waste  see  infra,  III,  J, 
4,  b,  (II). 

44.  Binswanger  v.  Henninger,  1  Alaska 
509    (appropriating  the  entire  proceeds  of  a 

[7] 


mine)  ;  Smith  v.  Stearns  Rancho  Co.,  129 
Cal.  58,  61  Pac.  662;  Van  Bergen  f.  Van 
Bergen,  3  Johns.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  282,  8  Am. 
Dec.  511. 

A  tenant  in  common  in  sole  possession  of 
a  ferry  may  maintain  a  bill  for  an  injunc- 
tion against  another  ferry  being  operated 
within  limitations  prohibited  by  law.  For- 
tain  V.  Smith,  114  Cal.  494,  46  Pac.  381. 

Trespass  committed  in  the  exercise  of  a 
servitude  created  by  one  tenant  in  common 
of  the  property  without  the  consent  of  hia 
cotenant  justifies  equitable  interference.  Jack- 
son V.  State  Belt  Electric  St.  R.  Co.,  7  North. 
Co.  Rep.   (Pa.)   286. 

Interfering  with  water  rights  see  Union 
Mill,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Dangberg,  81  Fed.  73;  Still- 
man  V.  White  Rock  Mfg.  Co.,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,446,  3  Woodb.  &  M.  538. 

45.  Colorado. —  Mills  v.  Hart,  24  Colo.  505, 
'52  Pac.  680,  65  Am.  St.  Rep.  241. 

Georgia. —  Daniel  v.  Daniel,  102  Ga.  181, 
28  S.  E.  167. 

Michigan. — Williams  v.  Rogers,  110  Mich. 
4L8,  68  N.  W.  240. 

Montana. —  Butte,  etc.,  Consol.  Min.  Co.  v. 
Montana  Ore  Purchasing  Co.,  25  Mont.  41, 
63  Pac.  826;  Red  Mountain  Consol.  Min.  Co. 
V.  Esler,  18  Mont.  174,  44  Pac.  523 ;  Anaconda 
Copper  Min.  Co.  «.  Butte,  etc.,  Min.  Co.,  17 
Mont.  51'9,  43  Pac.  924. 

North  Carolina. —  Morrison  v.  Morrison, 
122  N.  C.  598,  29  S.  E.  901. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  104. 

46.  Fullington  v.  Kyle  Lumber  Co.,  139 
Ala.  242,  35  So.  852. 

[III.  J,  4,  b,  (l)] 


98     [38  Cycj 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


sparingly  exercised/'  and  equity  will  not  ordinarily  interfere  in  matters  of  coten- 
ancy where  no  fiduciary  relations  exist  between  the  tenants  in  common  and  there 
is  ample  remedy  at  law;  ^'  and  thus  in  the  absence  of  statute  or  agreement  to  the 
contrary  a  tenant  in  common  cannot,  ordinarily  by  injunction,  exclude  his  cotenant 
from  the  enjoyment  of  the  common  property.*'  In  such  a  case  complainant 
must,  in  order  to  obtain  relief  by  injunction,  prove  a  right  to  the  sole  enjoyment 
and  possession  of  the  entire  premises  as  against  defendant;  if  it  be  shown  that 
defendant  is  a  tenant  in  common  with  plaintiff  and  is  merely  exercising  his  right 
of  the  use  and  occupation  of  the  common  property,  the  latter  cannot  succeed.^" 
But  it  has  been  held  that  the  rule  is  different  where  a  bill  is  pending  for  a  partition 
of. the  premises;  ^'  and  that  an  injunction  may  issue  against  execution  on  a  judg- 
ment in  ejectment  until  after  payment  for  improvements;"  and  although  it  is 
not  ordinarily  competent  for  an  equity  court  to  interfere  by  injunction  merely 
because  one  tenant  in  common  holds  exclusive  possession  of  the  entire  estate, 
where  he  does  not  prevent  his  cotenants  therein  from  entering  and  enjoying  the 
possession  with  him,  even  in  such  case,  under  peculiar  equitable  circumstances, 
an  injunction  may  issue.^^  It  is  no  defense  to  a  bill  for  injunction  between  coten- 
ants to  restrain  trespass  that  plaintiff  has  trespassed  on  defendant's  interest ; 
such  matter  can  only  be  considered  in  framing  the  relief.^* 

(ii)  To  Restrain  Waste..  If  the  circumstances  warrant,  tenants  in  com- 
mon may  enjoin  each  other  from  waste  or  appropriating  the  entire  proceeds  of 
the  common  property.^^  Thus  an  injunction  may  issue  as  between  cotenants 
where  there  is  an  injury  to  the  common  property  amounting  to  waste,  tending 


47.  Obert  v.  Obert,  5  K  J.  Eq.  397. 

48.  Mason  v.  Norris,  18  Grant  Cb.  (U.  C.) 
500;  Bates  v.  Martin,  12  Grant  Cb.  (U.  C.) 
490. 

49.  Thompson  v.  Sanders,  113  Ga.  1024, 
39  S.  E.  419;  Leatberbury  v.  Mclnnis,  85 
Miss.  160,  37  So.  1018;  People  v.  Golding, 
55  Misc.   (N.  Y.)   425,  106  N.  Y.  Suppl.  821. 

50.  Hihn  v.  Pack,  18  Cal.  640;  Glynn 
County  Bd.  of  Education  v.  Day,  128  Ga.  156, 
57  S.  E.  359;  Country  Club  Land  Assoc.  V: 
Lohbauer,  187  N.  Y.  106,  7«  N.  E.  «44  [af- 
firming 110  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  875,  97  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  11].  See  Baker  v.  Casey,  19  Grant 
Cb.  (U.  C.)  637;  Christie  v.  Saunders,  2 
Grant  Cb.  (U.  C.)  670. 

51.  Lassert  v.  Salyerda,  17  Grant  Ch. 
(U.  C.)    109. 

.52.  Russell  v.  Defrance,  39  Mo.  506. 

53.  Baker  v.  Casey,  17  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.) 
195;  Bates  v.  Martin,  12  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.) 
490. 

54.  Knickerbocker  Ice  Co.  v.  Forty-second 
St.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  489. 

55.  Alaska. —  Binswanger  f.  Henninger,  1 
Alaska  509. 

Colorado. —  Mills  v.  Hart,  24  Colo.  505,  52 
Pac.  680,  65  Am.  St.  Rep.  241. 

Georgia. —  Daniel  v.  Daniel,  102  Ga.  181, 
28  S.  E.  167. 

Michigan. — Williams  v.  Rogers,  110  Mich. 
418,  68  N.  W.  240;  Penton  v.  Miller,  108 
Mich.  246,  66  N.  W.  966. 

Mississippi. —  Leatberbury  v.  Mclnnis,  85 
Miss.  160,  37  So.  1018. 

Montana. —  Butte,  etc.,  Consol.  Min.  Co. 
V.  Montana  Ore  Purchasing  Co.,  25  Mont. 
41,  63  Pac.  826;  Harrigan  v.  Lynch,  21  Mont. 
36,  52  Pac.  642. 

North  Carolina. — 'Morrison  V.  Morrison, 
122  N.  C.  598,  29  S.  E.  901. 

[Ill,  J,  4,  b,  (I)] 


Oregon. —  Grant  f.  Paddock,  30  Greg.  312, 
47  Pac;  712. 

South  Dakota. —  Wood  v.  Steinau,  9  S.  D. 
110,  68  N.  W.  160. 

Texas. —  Tignor  v.  Toney,  13  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
518,  35  S.  W.  881. 

After  a  bill  for  partition  a  joint  tenant 
will  be  restrained  on  the  complaint  of  bis 
cotenant  from  committing  waste,  although 
the  general  principle  is  that  injunction  will 
not  lie  between  cotenants  for  its  commission. 
Lassert  v.  Salyerds,  17  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.) 
109. 

Malicious  destruction  may  be  a  ground  to 
stay  waste.  Hole  (-.  Thomas,  7  Ves.  Jr.  689, 
6  Rev.  Rep.  195,  32  Eng.  Reprint  237. 

Mining. — An  injunction  may  issue  to  re- 
sti'ain  waste  or  the  appropriation  of  the  en- 
tire proceeds  of  the  common  mining  prop- 
erty by  a  tenant  in  common  thereof.  Bins- 
wanger  v.  Henninger,  1  Alaska  509;  Butte, 
etc.,  Consol.  Min.  Co.  f.  Montana  Ore  Pur- 
chasing Co.,  26  Mont.  41,  63  Pac.  825;  Ana- 
conda Copper  Min.  Co.  v.  Butte,  etc.,  Min. 
Co.,  17  Mont.  619,  43  Pac.  924;  Tipping  v. 
Bobbins,  71  Wis.  507,  37  N.  W.  427;  Goode- 
now  V.  Farquhar,  19  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  614; 
Dougall  V.  Foster,  4  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  319. 
And  it  is  immaterial,  in  an  action  by  tenants 
in  common  to  restrain  a  cotenant  from  exer- 
cising exclusive  ownership  over  the  common 
property,  that -defendant's  work  enhances  the 
value  thereof.  Harrigan  v.  Lynch,  21  Mont. 
3fi,  52  Pac.  642.  So  as  to  quarrying  stone 
by  the  lessee  of  a  cotenant.  Goodenow  v. 
Farquhar,  19  Grant  Cb.  (U.  C.)  614.  But 
in  the  absence  of  wilful  or  unnecessary  in- 
jury or  destruction,  caused  by  negligence  or 
unskilfulness,  one  tenant  in  common  will  not, 
at  the  instance  of  his  cotenants,  be  enjoined 
from  prosecuting  the  business  of  mining   on 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  CycJ     99 


to  destroy  the  chief  value  thereof  to  the  party  complaining,^'  or  to  restrain  waste, 
where  a  statute  provided  that  an  action  of  waste  may  lie  between  cotenants;  ^' 
but  such  jurisdiction  is  sparingly  exercised,^'  and  equity  will  not  ordinarily  enjoin 
waste  at  the  suit  of  a  tenant  in  common  against  his  cotenants  except  where  it  is 
destructive  of  the  inheritance,  or  such  cotenant  is  insolvent,  or  there  is  some 
other  special  equitable  reasons  for  interfering.^" 

5.  Construction  of  Statutes  Relating  to  Actions  Involving  Cotenancy.     The 
rights  and  remedies  of  cotenants  have  been  considerably  modified  by  statutes 


their  common  claim.  McCord  v.  Oakland 
Quicksilver  Min.  Co.,  64  Cal.  134,  27  Pac. 
863,  49  Am.  Eep.  686.  This  rule  is  subject 
to  modification  according  to  respective  stat- 
utes (see  Harrigan  v.  Lynch,  21  Mont.  36, 
52  Pac.  642)  ;  or  according  to  the  peculiar 
circumstances  of  the  particular  case,  as  where 
it  is  alleged  that  the  complaining  party  owns 
the  larger  interest  in  said  claim,  that  it  is 
being  worked  without  the  consent  and  against 
the  wishes  of  plaintiflF,  and  that  defendant  ia 
not  dividing  the  proceeds  thereof  in  good  faith, 
thus  bringing  defendant  within  the  terms  of 
a  statute  in  relation  to  exclusive  ownership 
(Red  Mountain  Consol.  Min.  Co.  -e.  Ealer, 
18  Mont.  174,  44  Pac.  523).  It  is  not  waste 
for  a  tenant  in  common  therein  to  get,  or 
license  to  get,  a  coal  mine  in  the  ordinary 
course  of  working;  such  workings  are  not  a 
trespass  where  less  than  the  proper  share  of 
said  cotenant  was  taken.  It  is  a  matter  of 
accounting  on  the  basis  of  the  value  of  the 
coal  at  the  pit's  mouth  less  all  costs  of  getting 
and  receiving  it.  Job  v.  Potton,  L.  R.  20 
Eq.  84,  44  L.  J.  Ch.  262,  32  L.  T.  Eep.  N.  S. 
110,  23  Wkly.  Eep.  588. 

56.  Stout  V.  Curry,  110  Ind.  514,  11  N.  B. 
487;  Leatherbury  v.  Mclnnis,  86  Miss.  160, 
37  So.  1018,  107  Am.  St.  Rep.  274.  And  see 
infra,  this  note. 

Timber. — ^As  a  general  rule  a  tenant  in 
common  in  timber  lands  has  no  right  to  cut 
the  timber  thereon  without  the  consent  of  his 
coowners  if  such  cutting  amounts  to  waste; 
and  an  injunction  may  issue  restraining  him 
from  so  doing.  Stout  v.  Curry,  110  Ind.  514, 
11  N.  E.  487;  Dodge  v.  Davis,  85  Iowa  77,  52 
N.  W.  2;  Cotten  v.  Christen,  110  La.  444,  34 
So.  597;  State  v.  Judge  of  Fourth  Judicial 
Dist.  Ct.,  52  La.  Ann.  103,  26  So.  769; 
Wilbert's  Sons  Lumber,  etc.,  Co.  ■;;.  Patureau, 
44  La.  Ann.  355,  10  So.  782;  Johnson  v. 
Johnson,  2  Hill  Eq.  (S.  C.)  277,  29  Am.  Dec. 
72.  And  equity  will  enjoin  a  tenant  in  com- 
mon from  stripping  the  land  of  its  timber 
pending  a  bill  in  equity.  Bradley  v.  Reed, 
3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,785;  Proudfoot  v.  Bush, 
7  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  518.  But  an  injunc- 
tion will  not  be  granted  to  prevent  the  cut- 
ting pf  timber  on  the  premises  not  amount- 
ing to  waste,  in  the  absence  of  other  equitable 
reasons  (Hihn  V.  Peck,  18  Cal.  640;  Brittain 
V.  Parker,  12  Nova  Scotia  589)  ;  nor  may  a 
bill  for  partition  and  for  an  injunction 
against  cutting  timber  trees  on  land  owned 
in  common  be  sustained  where  the  only  alle- 
gation in  relation  to  the  reasons  therefor 
is  that  timber  had  been  cut  on  the  common 
land  and  sold  by  defendants,   and   there   is 


neither  averment  of  insolvency  of  defendants 
nor  that  the  amount  of  timber  so  cut  ex- 
ceeded defendants'  share  (Hihn  v.  Peek,  18 
Cal.  640).  If  it  appear,  in  the  case  of  a 
writ  forbidding  the  cutting  and  removal  of 
timber,  that  such  timber  had  been  cut  on 
land  owned  by  the  parties  in  common,  the 
court  may  open  the  writ  and  allow  defend- 
ant to  remove  the  timber  cut,  under  proper 
security  given  by  defendant  for  the  protec- 
tion of  plaintiff  (Hensal  v.  Wright,  10  Pa. 
Co.  Ct.  416).  Even  if  no  injunction  issue 
except  in  cases  of  actual  destruction,  never- 
theless where  a  tenant  in  common  is  also 
trustee  under  a  will  of  the  interest  of  the 
owner  of  another  moiety  therein,  and  in 
breach  of  the  trust  cuts  timber  thereon  for 
his  own  benefit,  such  action  will  be  enjoined. 
Christie  v.  Saunders,  2  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.) 
670.  In  the  absence  of  a  showing  of  irregu- 
larity in  the  value  of  timber  growing  in 
different  parts  of  the  common  tract,  an  in- 
junction should  only  restrain  the  destruc- 
tion of  more  than  defendant's  share.  Leather- 
bury  V.  Mclnnis,  84  Miss.  160,  37  So.  1018, 
107  Am.  St.  Rep.  274. 

.57.  Michigan. — Fenton  v.  Miller,  108  Mich. 
246,  65  N.  W.  966. 

Worth  Carolina. —  Morrison  V.  Morrison, 
122  N.  C.  598,  29  S.  E.  901. 

Oregon. —  Grant  v.  Paddock,  30  Oreg.  312, 
47  Pac.  712. 

South  Dakota. —  Wood  x>.  Steinau,  9  S.  D. 
110,  68  N.  W<  160. 

Texas. —  Tignor  v.  Toney,  13  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
518,  35  S.  W.  881. 

58.  Obert  v.  Obert,  5  N.  J.  Bq.  397. 

In  the  absence  of  negligence,  or  wilful  or 
negligent  injury  or  destruction,  injunction 
will  not  issue.  McCord  v.  Oakland  Quick- 
silver Min.  Co.,  64  Cal.  134,  27  Pac.  863,  49 
Am.  Rep.  686;  Jackson  v.  Beach,  (N.  J.  Ch. 
1886)  3  Atl.  375.  It  is  intimated  that  or- 
dinarily no  injunction  lies  except  in  eases 
of  actual  destruction.  Christie  v.  Saunders, 
2  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  670. 

59.  Hihn  v.  Peck,  18  Cal.  640;  Stout  v. 
Curry,  110  Ind.  514,  11  N.  E.  487;  Carter  v. 
Bailey,  64  Me.  458,  18  Am.  Eep.  273;  Duvall 
V.  Waters,  1  Bland  (Md.)  569,  18  Am.  Dec. 
350;  Blood  v.  Blood,  110  Mass.  545;  Vose  v. 
Singer,  4  Allen  (Mass.)  226,  81  Am.  Dec. 
696. 

Injunction  denied  against  the  keeping  of 
a  liquor  saloon  on  the  common  property 
wTiere  no  special  injury  is  shown;  and  there 
is  nothing  to  show  that  the  injury  to  said 
property  is  irreparable  or  that  a  continuance 
of  the  alleged  abuse  is  threatened  and  im- 

[III,  J,  5] 


100     [38  Cye.J 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


in  the  respective  jurisdictions,  and  cases  apparently  divergent  are  so  because  of 
such  statutory  changes. *"  Statutes  conferring  jurisdiction  in  equity,*'  or  at  law,°^ 
in  actions  or  proceedings  relating  to  tenants  in  common,  are  liberally  construed,  "^ 
as  are  statutes  in  relation  to  the  joinder  or  non-joinder  of  parties, ^^  and  statutes 
relating  to  amount  of  damages,  extent  of  recovery,  and  the  granting  of  remedies 
for  the  benefit  of  cotenants  have  been  so  construed  as  to  maintain  and  further 
their  respective  rights  as  those  of  owners  in  severalty.  °^ 

6.  Limitations.  Although  statutes  of  limitation  may  apply  in  matters  between 
tenants  in  common,  the  time  for  the  commencement  of  the  running  of  the  statute 
is  intended  to  be  fixed  by  the  courts  at  such  a  period  as  wiU  not  deprive  a  tenant 
in  common  of  the  advantage  of  any  presumption  in  his  favor,  or  of  any  rightful 


minent  see  Oglesby  Coal  Co.  v.  Pasco,  79  111. 
164. 

60.  See  the  statutes  of  the  several  states. 
And  see  Hazen  v.  Wight,  87  Me.  233,  32  Atl. 
887 ;  Mills  ;;.  Eichardson,  44  Me.  79 ;  Proctor 
V.  Proctor,  182  Mass.  415,  63  N.  E.  797; 
Hastings  t.  Hastings,  110  Mass.  280;  Adams 
v.  Palmer,  6  Gray  (Mass.)  338;  Shepard  v. 
Pettit,  30  Minn.  119,  14  N.  W.  511;  Blake 
V.  Milliken,  14  N.  H.  213;  Bush  v.  Gamhle, 
127  Pa.  St.  43,  17  Atl.  865;  Bohlen  v.  Ar- 
thurs, 115  U.  S.  482,  6  S.  Ct.  114,  29  L.  ed. 
454. 

Conflict  of  laws. — Where  a  tortious  act  is 
done  in  relation  to  water  by  a  tenant  in  com- 
mon or  tenants  in  common  therein,  injuri- 
ously affecting  the  rights  of  their  cotenants, 
the  law  governing  is  that  of  the  state  within 
the  borders  of  which  the  injurious  act  is  done. 
Stillman  r.  White  Rock  Mfg.  Co.,  23  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  13,446,  3  Woodb.  &  M.  538. 

61.  May  v.  Parker,  12  Pick.  (Mass.)  34, 
22  Am.  Dec.  393. 

Where  the  parties  litigant  are  not'  tenants 
in  common,  but  intended  to  become  such,  a 
statute  conferring  equitable  jurisdiction  in 
matters  between  tenants  in  common  cannot  be 
exercised.  Flagg  i".  Mann,  14  Pick.  (Mass.) 
467. 

62.  California. — Wagoner  t:  Silva,  139  Cal. 
559,  73  Pae.  433. 

Connecticut. —  Fowler  v.  Fowler,  50  Conn. 
256. 

Illinois. —  Benjamin  v.  Stremple,  13  111. 
466,  trover. 

Missouri. —  Falconer  v.  Roberts,  S8  Mo. 
574  (ejectment)  ;  Rogers  v.  Penniston,  16 
Mo.  432. 

Pennsylvania. — iBush  v.  Gamble,  127  Pa. 
St.  43,  17  Atl.  865,  trespass  between  coten- 
ants for  the  wrongful  cutting  and  removing 
of  timber  trees. 

Wisconsin. —  Wood  v.  Noack,  84  Wis.  398, 
54  N.  W.  78'5,  for  the  severance  of  easily 
divisible  property. 

Forcible  entry  and  detainer  see  Presbrey  v. 
Presbrey,  13>  Allen  (Mass.)  281;  Allen  v.  Gib- 
son, 4  Rand.   (Va.)   468. 

63.  Richardson  v.  Richardson,  72  Me.  403; 
Hayden  v.  Merrill,  44  Vt.  336,  8  Am.  Rep. 
372. 

Concuiient  remedies. —  Statutes  conferring 
jurisdiction  on  equity  courts  have  been  held 
not  to  deprive  the  law  courts  of  their  juris- 
diction in  the  premises,  but  merely  to  give 
concurrent  remedies.     Fanning  v.  Chadwick, 

[HI.  J,  5] 


3  Pick.  (Mass.)  420,  15  Am.  Dec.  233;  Har- 
rington t:  Florence  Oil  Co.,  178  Pa.  St.  444, 
36  Atl.  855;  Winton  Coal  Co.  v.  Pancoast 
Coal  Co.,  170  Pa.  St.  437,  33  Atl.  110. 

If  a  cotenant  is  deprived  of  certain  rights 
by  statute,  equity  may  nevertheless  grant 
him  relief.  Johns  v.  Johns,  93  Ala.  239,  9 
So.  419. 

Water  rights. — Where  a  sta,tute  confers 
jurisdiction  on  equity  in  all  disputes  between 
tenants  in  common  where  there  is  no  ade- 
quate remedy  at  law,  equity  has  jurisdiction 
to  maintain  a  bill  complaining  of  the  use 
of  water  by  a  cotenant  of  a  mill  in  another 
mill  where  he  has  sole  ownership,  to  the 
derogation  of  the  rights  of  his  coowners  in 
the  first-named  mill.  May  v.  Parker,  12  Pick. 
(Mass.)   34,  22  Am.  Dee.  393. 

64.  See  Smith  v.  Stearns  Rancho  Co.,  129 
Cal.  58,  61  Pae.  662  (joinder  in  injunction 
against  interference  by  adverse  claimant)  ; 
Lee  Chuck  v.  Quan  Wo  Chong,  91  Cal.  593, 
28  Pae.  45;  Ross  v.  Heintzen,  36  Cal.  313; 
Presbrey  K.  Presbrey,  13  Allen  (Mass.)  281; 
Bannister  r.  Bull,  16  S.  C.  220;  Mather  v. 
Dunn,  11  S.  D.  196,  76  N.  W.  922,  74  Am. 
St.  Rep.  788'  (the  words  "united  in  interest" 
construed  to  apply  to  tenants  in  common,  so 
as  to  require  their  joinder  in  an  action)  ; 
Karren  v.  Rainey,  30  Utah  7,  83  Pae.  333; 
Boley  V.  AUred,  25  Utah  402,  71  Pae.  869; 
Allen  f.  Gibson,  4  Rand.    (Va.)   468. 

65.  McDodrill  v.  Pardee,  etc.,  Lumber  Co., 
40  W.  Va.  564,  21  S.  E.  878. 

Statutes  providing  for  punitive  damages 
held  not  to  be  enforceable  as  between  coten- 
ants see  Richardson  v.  Richardson,  64  Me. 
62;  Jenkins  r.  Woods,  145  Mass.  494,  14 
N.  E.  512;  Bush  v.  Gamble,  127  Pa.  St.  43, 
17  Atl.  865;  Wheeler  v.  Carpenter,  107  Pa. 
St.  271.  Compare  Mills  v.  Richardson,  44 
Me.  79. 

Statutes  held  inapplicable  between  tenants 
in  common  see  Barnum  v.  Landon,  25  Conn. 
137;  Elliott  r.  Frakes,  90  Ind.  389;  Patterson 
V.  Nixon,  79  Ind.  251;  Hastings  v.  Hastings, 
110  Mass.  2,80;  King  v.  Dickerman,  11  Gray 
(Mass.)  480;  Adams  f.  Palmer,  6  Gray 
(Mass.)  336;  Gregg  v.  Roaring  Springs  Land, 
etc.,  Co.,  97  Mo.  App.  447,  70  S.  W.  920; 
Wharton  v.  Wilkerson,  92  N.  C.  407;  North 
Pennsylvania  Coal  Co.  v.  Snowden,  42  Pa.  St 
48S,  82  Am.  Dec.  530;  Tipping  v.  Robbins, 
64  Wis.  546,  25  N.  W.  713;  Bohlen  v.  Ar- 
thurs, 115  U.  S.  482,  6  S.  Ct.  114,  29  L.  ed. 
454. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38Cye.]     lOl 


advantage  to  which  he  is  fairly  entitled  because  of  the  relationship  of  cotenancy.  °° 
Unless  such  statutes  are  clearly  applicable  to  cases  of  cotenancy,  they  will  not 
be  so  applied.*"  But  it  has  been  held  that  the  statute  of  limitations  applies,  as 
between  cotenants,  to  an  accounting,"'  and  a  cotenant  receiving  the  income  of 
lands  owned  in  common  is  not  a  trustee  of  the  moneys  received  by  him,  but  a 
mere  debtor  to  whom  the  ordinary  rules  of  limitations  apply, '"'  and  where  the 
tenant  in  common  in  possession  and  sole  enjoyment  of  the  common  property 
receives  the  rents  and  profits  of  it  to  his  own  use  claiming  them  as  his  own,  the 
statute  of  limitations  will  run  against  the  right  of  the  other  to  claim  an  accounting 
from  the  time  of  an  ouster  or  of  a  demand  and  refusal  to  account;  in  the  absence 
of  such  ouster  or  demand  and  refusal  the  collection  of  rents  and  profits  wUl  be 
regarded  as  an  act  of  agency.'" 

IV.  RIGHTS  AND  LIABILITIES  OF  COTENANTS  AS  TO  THIRD  PERSONS. 

A.  Authority  of  Cotenants  to  Bind  Each  Other  —  1.  Rule  Stated. 
Under  ordinary  circumstances  neither  tenant  in  common  can  bind  the  estate  or 
person  of  the  other  by  any  act  in  relation  to  the  common  property,  not  previously 
authorized  or  subsequently  ratified,'^  for  cotenants  do  not  sustain  the  relation 


66.  Adams  v.  Palmer,  6  Gray  (Mass.)  3'38; 
Saunders  v.  Gatlin,  21  N.  C.  86;  Wagstaff  f. 
Smith,  17  N.  C.  264. 

Destruction  of  chattel. — A  claim,  between 
cotenants,  for  the  destruction  of  a  chattel, 
is  ordinarily  within  the  operation  of  the 
statute  of  limitations.  Saunders  v.  Gatlin, 
21  N.  C.  86. 

67.  Pope  f.  Brasfield,  110  Ky.  128,  61 
S.  W.  5,  22  Ky.  L.  Eep.  1613,  holding  that 
the  doctrine,  that  in  a  matter  against  par- 
ceners or  joint  tenants,  some  of  whom  are 
under  no  disability,  the  statute  runs  against 
all,  cannot  be  applied  as  •  against  cotenants, 
as  they  own  severally,  and  might  sue  sev- 
erally. 

Statutes  held  applicable  see  Alvarado  v. 
Nordholt,  95  Cal.  116,  30  Pac.  211;  Dawson 
f.  Edwards,  189  111.  60,  59  N.  E.  590;  Culler 
f.  Motzer,  13  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  356,  15  Am. 
Dec.  604;  McCann  v.  Welch,  106  Wis.  142,  81 
N.  W.  996. 

Statutes  held  to  be  inapplicable  see  Cooter 
V.  Dearborn,  115  111.  509,  4  N.  E.  388;  Stern 
V.  Selleck,  136  Iowa  291,  11  N.  W.  451;  Jonas 
V.  Flanniken,  69  Miss.  577,  11  So.  319;  Brooks 
V.  Fowle,  14  N.  H.  248;  Mott  v.  Carolina 
Land,  etc.,  Co.,  146  N.  C.  525,  60  S.  E.  423'; 
Tharpe  v.  Holcomb,  126  N.  C.  365,  35  S.  B. 
608;  Jeter  v.  Davis,  109  N.  C.  458,  13  S.  B. 
908;  Hampton  v.  Wheeler,  99  N.  C.  222,  6 
S.  E.  236;  Breden  v.  McLaurin,  98  N.  O. 
307,  4  S.  E.  136;  Page  v.  Branch,  97  N.  C. 
97,  1  S.  E.  625;  Hicks  v.  Bullock,  96  N.  C. 
164,  1  S.  E.  629;  Tanney  K.  Tanney,  24  Pittsb. 
Leg.  J.  N.  S.  (Pa.)  43  [affirmed  in  159  Pa. 
St.  277,  28  Atl.  287,  3«  Am.  St.  Eep.  678] ; 
Metz  V.  Metz,  48  S.  C.  472,  26  S.  E.  787; 
Van  Velsor  v.  Hughson,  45  U.  C.  Q.  B.  252 
lafflrmed  in  9  Ont.  App.  390]. 

68.  Jolly  V.  Bryan,  86  N.  C.  457 ;  Wagstaff 
V.  Smith,  39  N.  C.  1;  Keller  v.  Lamb,  202 
Pa.  St.  412,  51  Atl.  982;  Corbett  v.  Laurens, 
5  Eich.  Eq.  (S.  C.)  301. 

69.  St.  John  V.  Coates,  63  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
460,  19  N.  Y.  Suppl.  419  [affirmed  in  140 
N.  Y.  634,  35  N.  E.  891]. 


70.  Georgia.— B.ufl  v.  McDonald,  22  Ga. 
131,  68  Am.  Dec.  487. 

North  Carolina. —  Jolly  v.  Bryan,  86  N.  C. 
457 ;  Northcot  v.  Casper,  41  N.  C.  303 ;  Wag- 
staff V.  Smith,  39  N.  C.  1. 

South  Carolina: —  Corbett  v.  Laurens,  5 
Rich.  Eq.  301. 

Tennessee. —  Terrill  v.  Murry,  4  Yerg.  104. 

Canada. —  iSe  Kirkpatrick,   10   Ont.  Pr.   4. 

If  jurisdiction  be  concurrent  at  law  and  in 
equity,  then  the  legal  bar  of  limitations  ap- 
plies in  equity;  not  as  a  matter  of  law  but 
as  a  matter  of  comity.  But  limitations  ap- 
plicable at  law  ought  never  to  operate,  in 
equity,  to  extinguish  plaintiff's  smaller  claim 
as  against  defendant's  set-off  for  a  larger 
amount.  Talbott  v.  Todd,  5  Dana  (Ky.) 
190. 

71.  Alabama. —  Mylin  v.  King,  139  Ala. 
319,  35  So.  998;  Johnston  v.  Jones,  85  Ala. 
286,  4  So.  748. 

Arkansas. —  Friar  v.  Baldridge,  91  Ark. 
133,  120  S.  W.  989,  holding  that  an  agree- 
ment by  one  tenant  to  resell  the  land  or  to 
rescind  the  contract  of  purchase  would  not 
bind  his  cotenant. 

California. —  Mahoney  v.  Van  Winkel,  21 
Cal.  552;  Pearis  v.  Covillaud,  6  Cal.  617,  65 
Am.  Dec.  543.  See  also  Crary  v.  Campbell, 
24  Cal.  634. 

Connecticut. —  Barnum  v.  Landon,  25  Conn. 
137. 

Illinois. — ^Appell  t:  Appell,  235  111.  27,  86 
N.  E.  205;  Chappell  v.  McKnight,  108  111. 
670;  Murray  v.  Haverty,  70  111.  318. 

Iowa. — Anderson  v.  Acheson,  132  Iowa  744, 
110  N.  W.  335;  Blackledge  v.  Davis,  129  Iowa 
591,  105  N.  W.  1000;  Forrest  Milling  Co.  v. 
Cedar  Falls  Mill  Co.,  103  Iowa  619,  72  N.  W. 
1076. 

Louisiana. — Kenopski  v.  Davis,  27  La.  Ann. 
174. 

Maine. —  Longfellow  v.  Quimby,  29  Me,  196, 
48  Am.  Dec.  525.  Compare  Rogers  v.  White, 
6  Me.  193. 

Maryland. —  Eakle  •;;.    Clark,   30  Md.    322. 

Massachusetts. —  Johnson     v.     Stevens,     7 

[IV,  A.  I] 


102     [38  Cyc] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


of  principal  and  agent  to  each  other  nor  are  they  partners  and  the  rule  which 


Cush.  431;  Miller  f.  Miller,  7  Pick.  133,  19 
Am.  Dec.  264. 

Michigan. — Walker  v.  Marion,  143  Mich. 
27,  106  N.  W.  400;  Tuttle  v.  Campbell,  74 
Mich.  652,  42  N.  W.  384,  16  Am.  St.  Rep. 
652 ;  Eichey  v.  Brown,  58  Mich.  435,  25  N.  W. 
386. 

Minnesota. —  Loveridge  f.  Coles,  72  Minn. 
57,  74  N.  W.  1109. 

Missouri. —  Nalle  v.  Thompson,  173  Mo. 
595,  73  S.  W.  599;  Kansas  City  Hydraulic 
Press  Brick  Co.  v.  Pratt,  114  Mo.  App.  643, 
93  S.  W.  300 ;  Walker  v.  Evans,  98  Mo.  App. 
301,  71  S.  W.  1086. 

New  Jersey. —  King  v.  Wilson,  54  N.  J. 
Eq.  247,  34  Atl.  394. 

Weio  York. — Whiton  v.  Spring,  74  N.  Y. 
169;  Jackson  V.  Moore,  94  N.  Y.  App.  Div. 
504,  87  N.  Y.  Suppl.  1101;  Knope  i;.  Nunn, 
81  Hun  349,  30  N.  Y.  Suppl.  896  [affirmed  in 
151  N.  Y.  506,  45  N.  E.  940,  56  Am.  St.  Eep. 
642];  Dobson  v.  Kuhnla,  66  Hun  627,  20 
N.  Y.  Suppl.  771;  St.  Paul's  Church  v.  Ford, 
34  Barb.  16;  Gock  v.  Keneda,  29  Barb.  120; 
Matter  of  New  York,  41  Misc.  134,  83  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  951 ;   Jackson  v.  Moore,  6   Cow.  706. 

North  Carolina. —  Mitchem  v.  Wallace,  150 
N.  C.  640,  64  S.  E.  901;  Lenoir  r.  Valley 
Eiver  Min.  Co.,  113  N.  C.  513,  18  S.  E.  73; 
Causee  v.  Anders,  20  N.  C.  388. 

Ohio. —  Thomason  v.  Dayton,  40  Ohio  St. 
63. 

Oregon. —  Beezley  v.  Crossen,  14  Oreg.  473, 
13  Pac.  306. 

Pennsylvania. —  Mercur  r.  State  Line,  etc., 
E.  Co.,  171  Pa.  St.  12,  32  Atl.  1126;  McKinley 
V.  Peters,  111  Pa.  St.  283,  3  Atl.  27;  Work- 
man V.  Guthrie,  29  Pa.  St.  495,  72  Am.  Dec. 
654;  Agnew  t.  Johnson,  17  Pa.  St.  373,  55 
Am.  Dec.  565;  Heeter  v.  Lvon,  5  Pa.  Super. 
Ct.  260. 

Rhode  Island. —  Dexter  Lime  Eock  Co.  v. 
Dexter,  6  R.  I.  353. 

Tennessee. — ^Vaughan  v.  Cravens,  1  Head 
108,  73  Am.  Dec.  163. 

Teseas. —  Thomas  v.  Morse,  80  Tex.  289,  16 
S.  W.  48;  Torrey  v.  Martin,  (1887)  4  S.  W. 
642;  Kirby  v.  Hayden,  44  Tex.  Civ.  App.  207, 
99  S.  W.  746;  Hintze  v.  Krabbenschmidt, 
(Civ.  App.  1897)  44  S.  W.  38;  Gillum  !;.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  622,  23 
S.  W.  716. 

Virginia. —  Kemper  «.  Ewing,  25  Gratt. 
427. 

Wisconsin. —  Tipping  v.  Eobbins,  64  Wis. 
546,  25  N.  W.  713. 

United  States. — Williams  v.  Morrison,  28 
Fed.  872. 

England. —  Durham,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Wawn, 
3  Beav.  119,  4  Jur.  764,  43  Eng.  Ch.  119,  49 
Eng.  Eeprint  47. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  119  et  seq. 

One  tenant  cannot  grant  or  create  an  ease- 
ment in  the  common  property  without  the 
precedent  authority  or  subsequent  ratifica- 
tion of  the  other  tenants  in  common.  Pfeiffer 
v.  State  University,  74  Cal.  156,  15  Pac.  622 ; 
Marshall  V.  Trumbull,  28  Conn.  183,  73  Am 

[IV,  A.  1] 


Dec.  667;  Charleston,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Fleming, 
118  Ga.  699,  45  S.  E.  664;  Forrest  Milling 
Co.  V.  Cedar  Falls  Mill  Co.,  103  Iowa  619,  72 
N.  W.  1076;  Baker  v.  Willard,  171  Mass. 
220,  50  N.  E.  620,  68  Am.  St.  Eep.  445,  40 
L.  E.  A.  754;  St.  Louis  v.  Laclede  Gas-Light 
Co.,  96  Mo.  197,  9  S.  W.  581,  9  Am.  St.  Rep. 
334;  McBeth  v.  Trabue,  69  Mo.  642;  Hallett 
f.  Parker,  68  N.  H.  598,  39  Atl.  433 ;  Palmer 
V.  Palmer,  150  N.  Y.  139,  44  K.  E.  966,  55 
Am.  St.  Eep.  653 ;  Crippen  v.  Morss,  49  N.  Y. 
63;  Ferson's  Appeal,  96  Pa.  St.  140;  Jack- 
son V.  State  Belt  Electric  St.  E.  Co.,  7  North. 
Co.  Eep.  (Pa.)  286;  Daniels  v.  Almy,  18 
E.  I.  244,  27  Atl.  330;  Charleston,  etc.,  E. 
Co.  t:  Leech,  33  S.  C.  175,  11  S.  E.  631,  26 
Am.  St.  Eep.  667;  Scott  v.  State,  1  Sneed 
(Tenn.)  629;  Mabie  i".  Matteson,  17  Wis.  1. 
Compare  Valentine  v.  Healey,  17-8  N.  Y.  391, 
70  N.  E.  913  [reversing  77  N.  Y.  App. 
Div.  635,  79  N.  Y.  Suppl.  1149].  Where  a 
cotenant's  sole  deed  attempting  to  convey 
timber  on  the  common  property  was  invalid 
as  to  his  cotenants,  a  provision  of  the  deed 
attempting  to  convey  a  right  of  way  to  and 
from  the  timber,  and  a  right  to  enter  the  land 
to  cut  and  remove  logs,  was  also  inoperative. 
Lee  V.  Follensby,  83  Vt.  35,  74  Atl.  327.  But 
a  claim  to  an  easement  of  an  elevated  road 
by  prescription  as  against  tenants  in  com- 
mon is  not  defeated  because  of  the  infancy 
of  one  of  the  tenants  in  common,  on  the 
ground  that  the  prescriptive  right  cannot  be 
given  without  the  concurrence  of  all  the  ten- 
ants in  common,  under  the  rule  that  a  tenant 
in  common  can  for  his  part  release  the  ease- 
ments of  light,  air,  and  access,  and  transfer 
that  title  to  a  railway  in  the  street.  Taggart 
V.  Manhattan  E.  Co.,  57  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  184, 
109  N.  Y.  Suppl.  38.  A  widow's  conveyance 
of  a  right  of  way  over  her  husband's  land 
could  not  affect  the  interest  of  his  children 
as  his  heirs  at  law,  her  relation  to  the  land 
remaining  that  of  tenant  in  common  with 
the  children,  her  interest  having  imposed 
upon  it  the  easement  coextensive  with  her 
one-third  interest.  Foster  f.  Foster,  81  S.  C. 
307,  62  S.  E.  320. 

Repairs. —  There  is  no  implied  authority  in 
one  eotenant  to  improve  or  deal  with  the 
common  property  at  the  expense  of  the  other 
tenants  without  their  previous  authority  or 
subsequent  ratification,  upon  the  principle 
that  no  man  has  a  right  to  improve  the  prop- 
erty of  another  against  his  consent  and 
charge  him  with  the  expenses.  Converse  v. 
Ferre,  11  Mass.  325;  Taylor  v.  Baldwin,  10 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  582  [affirmed  in  10  Barb.  626]. 
If  such  consent  is  unreasonably  withheld,  it 
seems  that  a  eotenant  may  repair  the  com- 
mon property  at  the  expense  of  all  the  own- 
ers in  common,  if  such  repairs  are  necessary 
for  the  preservation  of  the  common  property. 
Taylor  v.  Baldwin,  supra.  And  see  supra, 
in,  E,   1.  '^ 

Mortgage  or  lien.— The  ownership  in  a 
tenancy  in  common  being  in  severalty,  a  mort- 
gage or  lien  placed  upon  the  interest  of  one 
of  the  cotenants  creates  no  lien  upon  the  un- 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc.J     103 


prevents  them  from  binding  each  other  applies  with  greater  force  after  expiration 


divided  portions  owned  by  the  others  of  them; 
they  cannot  thus  interfere  with  each  other's 
interests.  Torrey  v.  Cook,  116  Mass.  163; 
Moreland  v.  Strong,  115  Mich.  211,  73  N.  W. 
140,  69  Am.  St.  Eep.  553;  Porter  v.  Stone, 
70  Miss.  291,  12  So.  208;  Jolliffe  v.  Maxwell, 
3  Nebr.  (UnoflF.)  244,  91  N.  W.  563;  Stoddard 
V.  Weston,  3  Silv.  Sup.  (N.  Y.)  13,  6  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  34.  Thus  where  land  is  conveyed  to 
a  woman  and  her  infant  children,  she  may 
create  a  lien  thereon  affecting  her  interest, 
but  not  the  interests  of  the  minors.  Leavell 
V.  Carter,  (Ky.  1908)  112  S.  W.  1118.  But 
if  the  deed  creating  a  cotenancy  is  not  re- 
corded until  after  the  recording  of  a  mort- 
gage by  the  owner  of  record,  it  may  be  that 
the  mortgage  is  a  lien  upon  the  entire  prop- 
erty. Atkinson  v.  Hewett,  63  Wis.  396,  23 
N.  W.  889.  The  surrender  of  mortgaged 
common  property  by  one  tenant  in  common 
only  surrenders  his  part  thereof.  Vermont 
L.  &  T.  Co.  V.  Cardin,  19  Wash.  304,  53  Pao. 
164. 

Pledge. —  One  tenant  in  common  of  a  chat- 
tel cannot  pledge  his  cotenant's  interest 
without  previous  authority  or  subsequent 
ratification.     Frans  v.  Young,  24  Iowa  375. 

A  contract  of  sale  by  one  cotenant  dispos- 
ing of  his  interest  in  mining  lands  does  not 
bind  his  cotenants  to  -accept  a  royalty  re- 
served to  the  vendor.  Mercur  v.  State  Line, 
etc.,  E.  Co.,  171  Pa.  St.  12,  32  Atl.  1126. 

Sign  boards. — A  contract  by  a  tenant  in 
common,  giving  permission  to  one  to  erect 
sign  and  bill  boards  on  the  land,  is  not  bind- 
ing on  the  cotenants.  Walker  v.  Marion,  143 
Mich.  27,  106  N.  W.  400. 

Lien  for  materials. —  On«  tenant  in  com- 
mon cannot  without  authority  charge  in- 
terest of  his  cotenant  with  a  lien  for  ma- 
terials furnished  for  the  improvement  of  the 
common  property.  Van  Eiper  v.  Morton,  61 
Mo.  App.  440. 

License  to  enter. — A  tenant  in  common  can- 
not give  a  license  to  enter,  as  against  his  co- 
tenant.  Moore  v.  Moore,  (Cal.  1893)  34  Pac. 
90.  But  a  licensee  of  one  tenant  in  com- 
mon, for  entry,  may  entitle  the  occupier 
under  such  license  to  a  notice  to  quit  before 
he  is  liable  to  any  action  for  occupation 
under  said  license,  and  the  ejectment  or 
battery  of  such  occupier  by  a  tenant  in  com- 
mon, without  notice,  may  amount  to  a  tort 
for  which  such  tenant  in  common  may  be 
liable.  Ord  v.  Chester,  18  Cal.  77;  Mc- 
Garrell  v.  Murphy,  1  Hilt.  (N.  Y.)  132; 
Causee  v.  Anders,  20  N.  C.  388;  Taylor  V. 
Stockdale,  3  McCord  (S.  C.)  302,  holding 
that  trespass  to  try  the  title  will  not  lie. 
If  one  having  no  interest  in  the  common  prop- 
erty grants  a  permit  in  relation  thereto,  and 
title  to  an  interest  therein  is  subsequently 
cast  upon  such  licensor  by  descent,  the  per- 
mit so  given  is  not  binding  upon  the  owners 
of  the  other  interests  therein.  Duke  v.  Pos- 
tal Tel.  Cable  Co.,  71  S.  C.  95,  50  S.  B. 
675. 

Mines  and  minerals. —  A  tenant  in  common 
cainnot  license  a  stranger  to  prosecute  mining 


on  the  common  estate  so  as  to  bind  a  dissent- 
ing cotenant,  even  though  a  statute  declares 
a  license  irrevocable  after  a  valuable  discov- 
ery. Tipping  V.  Eobbins,  71  Wis.  507,  37 
N.  W.  427.  Such  a  license  extends  only  to 
the  licensor's  interest  (Omaha,  etc..  Smelting, 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Tabor,  13  Colo.  41,  21  Pac.  925, 
16  Am.  St.  Eep.  185,  5  L.  E.  A.  236),  and  to 
that  extent  only  is  valid  (Williams  v.  Morri- 
son, 28  Fed.  872 ) .  A  tenant  in  common  may 
not  enter  into  any  agreement  in  relation  to 
the  mines  that  would  unduly  prejudice  the 
interests  of  his  cotenants;  he  can  only  con- 
vey or  contract  in  relation  to  such  interests  as 
he  may  own  therein  (McKinley  v.  Peters,  111 
Pa.  St.  283,  3  Atl.  27),  and  fraud  of  a  tenant 
in  common  or  his  agent  cannot  affect  the 
rights  of  the  other  cotenants  in  the  premises 
(Fisher  v.  Seymour,  23  Colo.  642,  49  Pac. 
30;  Yarwood  v.  Johnson,  29  Wash.  643,  70 
Pao.  123). 

Timber. —  No  license,  by  one  cotenant  alone, 
to  cut  timber  from  land  owned  in  common 
passes  the  legal  title  to  such  timber  to  the 
purchaser;  the  interest  which  he  acquires  can 
only  be  asserted  in  equity  (Burt,  etc.,  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Clay  City  Lumber  Co.,  HI  Ky.  725, 
64  S.  W.  652,  23  Ky.  L.  Eep.  1019;  McDodrill 
V.  Pardee,  etc..  Lumber  Co.,  40  W.  Va.  564, 
21  S.  E.  878;  Baker  v.  Whiting,  2  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  787,  3  Sumn.  475)  unless  the  tenants  in 
common  are  partners  in  the  premises  (Baker 
V.  Wheeler,  8  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  505,  24  Am. 
Deo.  66 ) .  The  non-consenting  cotenants  may 
maintain  trover  against  the  vendee  or  licensee. 
Fleming  v.  Katahdin  Pulp,  etc.,  Co.,  93  Me. 
110,  44  Atl.  378;  Sullivan  v.  Sherry,  111  Wis. 
476,  87  N.  W.  471,  87  Am.  St.  Eep.  890;  Duff 
V.  Bindley,  16  Fed.  178.  And  see  infra,  IV,  B, 
1,  c.  And  where  one  tenant  in  common  with- 
out authority  sells  all  the  timber  on  the  land, 
his  cotenant  is  entitled  to  recover  from  him 
and  from  purchasers  with  notice  of  the  co- 
tenancy his  share  of  the  value  of  the  timber 
taken.  Collier  v.  Cameron,  (Tex.  Civ.  App. 
1909)  117  S.  W.  915.  But  trespass  quare 
clausum  fregit  cannot  be  maintained.  Wait 
V.  Eichardson,  33  Vt.  190,  78  Am.  Dec.  622. 
See  also  Hunting  v.  Eussell,  2  Cush.  (Mass.) 
145.  A  tenant  in  common  authorizing  a 
licensee  to  cut  timber  on  the  common  land, 
without  the  consent  of  his  cotenants,  can 
nevertheless  maintain  assumpsit  for  his  share 
against  said  licensee.  Kenniston  v.  Ham,  29 
N.  H.  501.  If  a  tenant  in  common  licenses 
a  stranger  to  cut  timber,  and  delivers  it  to 
defendant,  and  subsequently  sues  jointly  with 
his  cotenants  for  such  conversion,  the  action 
is  properly  nonsuited.  Eamsey  v.  Brown, 
(Pa.)  17  Atl.  207.  A  minor  tenant  in  com- 
mon cannot,  without  the  assent  of  his  coten- 
ants, grant  a  license  to  enter  and  cut  timber 
from  the  common  property.  Eichey  i:  Brown, 
58  Mich.  435,  25  N.  W.  386.  Where  a  part 
of  the  cotenants  license  the  cutting  of  tim- 
ber by  a  third  person,  from  the  land  owned 
in  common,  neither  the  licensee  acting  under 
said  license  nor  those  claiming  under  him 
are  in  a  position  to  claim  adversely  in  the 

[IV,  A,  1] 


104     [38  Cyc] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


of  the  cotenancy."  A  contract  by  one  tenant  in  common  in  relation  to  the 
whole  estate  being  voidable  at  the  election  of  his  cotenants  not  joining  in  said 
contract."  But  the  contracting  cotenant  may  himself  be  bound.'*  Even  where 
some  previous  authority  or  agency  is  conferred  upon  a  tenant  in  common,  his 
acts  must  be  strictly  within  the  authority,'^  third  persons  dealing  with  a  tenant 
in  common  being  bound  at  their  peril  to  ascertain  his  authority  to  bind  his 
coowners."  It  appears,  however,  that  where  one  of  two  tenants  in  common 
of  land  directs  some  act  to  be  done  in  relation  thereto  in  reasonable  appreciation 
of  imminent  danger  to  the  land  and  the  act  is  accordingly  done,  the  other  tenant 
in  common  cannot  recover  against  the  doer  of  said  act  in  tort,"  and  acts  done 
by  one  tenant  in  common  in  relation  to  the  comroon  interest  are  presumed  to 
have  been  done  by  authority  or  for  the  benefit  of  his  cotenants,  if  there  be  any 
circumstances  upon  which  to  base  such  a  presumption.'* 

2.  Lease;  Rescission  or  Surrender.    A  tenant  in  common  not  authorized 
thereto  by  his  cotenants  cannot  execute  a  lease  that  will  bind  them  without 


premises  as  against  the  tenants  in  common 
not  joining  in  such  license.  Oulf  Red  Cedar 
Lumber  (5>.  f.  Crenshaw,  148  Ala.  343,  42 
So.  564. 

Employment  of  a  third  person. —  Evidence 
that  a  tenant  in  common  acting  for  himself 
and  his  cotenant  employed  plaintiflF's  services 
is  admissible  to  prove  joint  liability  on  the 
part  of  said  cotenants.  Clifford  v.  Meyer, 
6  Ind.  App.  633,  34  N.  E.  23. 

72.  Benoist  v.  Eothschild,  145  Mo.  399,  46 
S.  W.  1081;  Stephens  r.  Ells,  65  Mo.  456. 
See  also  Benjamin  v.  American  Tel.,  etc.,  Co., 
196  Mass.  454,  82  N.  E.  681. 

73.  Georgia. —  Sewell  v.  Holland,  61  Ga. 
608. 

Missouri. —  Benoist  V.  Eothschild,  145  Mo. 
399,  46  S.  W.  1081. 

2few  York,. —  Knope  v.  Nunn,  151  N.  Y.  506, 
45  N.  E.  940,  56  Am.  St.  Eep.  642. 

Washington. —  Vermont  L.  &  T.'  Co.  v.  Car- 
din,  19  Wash.  304,  53  Pac.  164. 

Wisconsin. —  Martens  v.  O'Connor,  101  Wis. 
18,  76  N.  W.  774. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  119  e*  seq. 

Sedemption  of  land  by  payment  to  one  of 
several  cotenants  cannot  avail  as  against  the 
other  of  them  in  the  absence  of  previous  au- 
thority or  subsequent  ratification  affirming 
such  payment.  Maddox  v.  Bramlett,  84  Ga. 
84,  11  S.  E.  128. 

Location  of  road. —  One  tenant  in  common 
cannot  bind  the  others  by  an  agreement  rela- 
tive to  th«  location  of  a  road  over  the  com- 
mon land  or  the  assessment  of  damages  in  re- 
lation thereto;  nor  can  he  apply  for  a  jury 
of  condemnation  without  the  joinder  of  his 
cotenants  in  the  application  (Morrison  v. 
Clark,  89  Me.  103,  35  Atl.  1034,  56  Am.  St. 
Eep.  395;  Merrill  v.  Berkshire,  11  Pick. 
(Mass.)  269),  nor  can  he  accept  a  sum 
awarded  by  commissioners  in  condemnation 
so  as  to  conclude  his  cotenants;  they  will 
still  remain  entitled  to  compensation  for  their 
respective  interests  (Euppert  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  43  Iowa  490). 

Presumptions  of  authority. — Although  each 
cotenant  holds  in  severalty  and  holds  his 
separate  property,  except  as  modified  by  the 
tenancy  in  common,   as   any  other   property 

[IV.  A,  IJ 


might  be  held,  nevertheless  certain  presump- 
tions and  rules  of  law  arise  from  the  intimate 
relationship  between  the  coowners  growing 
out  of  the  cotenancy  and  the  nature  of  the 
common  property;  therefore  it  is  that  where 
one  cotenant  employs  someone  to  do  some 
proper  and  necessary  work  on  or  in  relation 
to  the  common  property  it  will  be  presumed, 
when  there  is  no  showing  to  the  contrary,  that 
said  employment  is  by  the  consent  of  the 
other  cotenants  or  that  such  consent  was  ex- 
pected, at  the  time  of  said  employment,  to 
have  been  obtained.  Barton  v.  Gray,  48  Mich. 
164,  12  N.  W.  30. 

74.  Baum  v.  McAfee,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1910) 
125  S.  W.  984. 

75.  Gillham  v.  Walker,  135  Ala.  459,  33 
So.  537,  holding  that  authority  to  a  tenant 
in  common  by  his  cotenants  to  deliver  a  deed 
does  not  warrant  him  in  entering  into  a  con- 
tract with  the  vendee  therein  to  perform 
certain  acts  extraneous  to  the  deed. 

Notice  revoking  an  agency  in  a  cotenant  for 
the  collection  of  rents  and  their  application 
to  the  satisfaction  of  an  encumbrance,  to- 
gether with  the  filing  of  a  bill  by  the  notifier 
for  an  accounting  for  rents  and  profits,  was 
held  sufficient  to  revoke  such  authority,  even 
though  such  notice  purported  to  revoke  a 
non-executed  power  of  attorney.  Switzer  v. 
Switzer,  57  N.  J.  Eq.  421,  41  Atl.  486. 

76.  Breaux  v.  Albert  Hanson  Lumber  Co., 
125  La.  421,  51  So.  444. 

77.  Crary  v.  Campbell,  24  Cal.  634. 

78.  Schwartz  v.  McQuaid,  214  111.  357,  73 
N.  E.  582,  105  Am.  St.  Eep.  112  (lease  by 
one  tenant  in  common  of  the  whole  property 
without  objection  by  his  cotenant,  for  several 
months)  ;  Valentine  v.  Healey,  1  N.  Y.  App. 
Div.  502,  37  N.  Y.  Suppl.  287  [reversed  on 
other  grounds  in  158  N.  Y.  369,  52  N.  E. 
1097,  43  L.  E.  A.  667]  ;  Lagorio  v.  Dozier,  91 
Va.  492,  22  S.  E.  239  (receipt  of  profits  and 
payment  of  taxes). 

Thus  an  entry  upon  land  owned  in  common, 
under  a  license  from  one  of  the  cotenants, 
will  be  presumed  to  be  under  the  cotenancy 
and  not  adTferse  thereto.  Berthold  v.  Fox, 
13  Minn.  501,  97  Am.  Dec.  243.  But  pre- 
sumption of  adverse  holding  may  arise  where 
the  entry  is  under  claim  of  the  whole  prop- 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON  [SSCye]     105 

subsequent  ratification,"  even  though  the  tenant  in  common  attempting  so  to 
lease  is  in  possession  of  the  whole  land;'"  nor  can  he  bind  his  cotenants  by  a  sur- 
render of  a  lease  without  their  authority;  *'  and  any  number  of  the  cotenants 
less  than  the  whole  of  them  are  incompetent  to  bind  their  non-rescinding  cotenants 
by  the  rescission  of  a  lease.^^  A  tenant  in  common  may,  however,  let  his  own 
share  of  the  common  property,  and  the  lessee  on  entry  will  have  the  same  right 
in  relation  to  the  other  cotenants  that  his  lessor  had;  *^  and  where  there  has  been 
no  objection  by  the  cotenants  not  executing  the  lease  to  the  occupancy  by  the 
lessee  of  the  one  who  executed  it,  and  his  cotenants  knew  of  such  occupancy 
and  made  no  objection  to  such  lease  and  directed  the  lessee  to  enter  and  hold 
possession  and  pay  rent  for  several  months,  the  knowledge  and  consent  of  the 
coowners  will  be  presumed.^''  Payment  of  rent  to  one  cotenant  is  a  defense 
to  a  claim  therefor  by  another  of  them  who  has  ratified  the  demise. ^^  A  sealed 
lease  signed  by  a  cotenant  for  himself  and  as  agent  of  his  cotenants  is  not  void, 
and  the  lessee  taking  possession  thereunder  is  liable  on  his  covenant  for  rent.*' 
If  one  cotenant  executes  a  lease  purporting  to  cover  the  whole  of  the  common 
property,  containing  a  clause  for  the  payment  of  certain  damages  in  the  event 
of  the  non-use  of  the  property  according  to  the  terms  of  the  lease,  and  subsequently 
an  accounting  is  demanded  for  rents  and  profits,  any  sums  so  paid  for  non-use 
under  the  terms  of  said  lease  do  not  constitute  part  of  the  damages  or  part  of  the 
rents  and  profits,  in  the  absence  of  ratification  of  the  lease  by  the  cotenants  claim- 
ing the  benefit  of  the  accounting. '^ 

3.  Release  or  Settlement.  Upon  the  question  of.  the  effect  of  a  release  by 
one  tenant  in  common  upon  the  rights  of  a  cotenant,  the  cases  are  not  in  harmony. 
Thus  it  is  held  that  whUe,  from  the  bare  relation  of  cotenancy,  the  law  does  not 
imply  authority  of  one  of  the  cotenants  to  bind  the  other  to  his  prejudice,*'  when- 
ever the  cause  of  action  existing  in  favor  of  any  number  of  cotenants  is  joint  the 
release  of  one  bars  an  action  by  the  others,*"  and  that  one  tenant  in  common  can 
settle  or  release  the  claim  of  all  tenants  in  common  for  trespass  upon  the  common 

erty.     Gill  v.  Fauntleroy,  8  B.  Mon.    (Ky.)  83.  California. —  Crary  «;.  Campbell,  24  Cal. 

177.  634. 

79.  Tainter  v.  Cole,  120  Mass.  162;  Lee  v.  Massachusetts. —  Rawson  v.  Morse,  4  Pick. 
Livingston,   143  Mich.  203,   106  N.   W.  713;  127;  Keay  f.  Goodwin,  16  Mass.  1. 

Mussey  v.  Holt,  24  N.  H.  248,  55  Am.  Dec.  Mmraesoto.— Berthold    v.    Fox,    13    Minn. 

234;   King  v.  Wilson,  54  N.  J.  Eq.  247,  34  501,  97  Am.  Dec.  243. 

Atl.  394.  Pennsylvania. —  Hayden    v.    Patterson,    51 

Repiesentatives   of  a  deceased   copartner,  Pa.  St.  261. 

being  tenants  in  common  with  his  survivor,  Wisconsin. —  Tipping  v.   Eobbins,   71   Wis. 

are  not  bound  merely  by  said  survivor's  lease.  507,  37  N.  W.  427. 

Un  Wong  V.  Kan  Chu,  5  Hawaii  225.  See  45   Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 

A  husband  and  wife  owning  part  of  a  tract  mon,"  §  123.                                               « 

as   community   property   and   the   remainder  84.  Schwartz  v.  McQuaid,  214  111.  .357,  73 

thereof   as   community  property   in   common  N.  E.  582,  105  Am.  St.  Rep.   112;   Stuart  v. 

with  another,  the  executing  of  a  lease  by  the  Mattern,  141  Mich.  686,  105  N.  W.  35. 

husband  without  the  concurrence  of  his  wife  85.  Phelps  v.  Conant,  30  Vt.  277. 

or  the  other  cotenant  was  held  to  be  invalid.  But  a  claim  under  a  bill  for  discovery  and 

Snyder  v.  Harding,   34   Wash.   286,   75   Pac.  an  accounting,  expressly  denying  the  title  of 

812.  defendant  and  the  validity  of  a  lease  executed 

An  oil  and  gas  lease  made  by  a  tenant  in  by  him,  for  rentals  received  by  virtue  of  an 
common  to  a  stranger  is  void  as  against  his  agreement  in  said  lease,  does  not .  amount  to 
cotenants.  But  it  is  valid  as  between  the  a  ratification  of  said  lease  by  plaintiff  en- 
parties  even  while  the  premises  remain  un-  titling  him  to  share  in  the  benefit  thereof, 
divided.  Zeigler  v.  Brenneman,  237  HI.  15,  McNeely  v.  South  Penn  Oil  Co.,  58  W.  Va. 
86  N.  E.  597.  438,  52  S.  E.  480. 

80.  Moreland  v.  Strong,  115  Mich.  211,  73  86.  Harms  v.  McCormick,  132  HI.  104,  22 
N.  W.   140,  69  Am.  St.  Rep.  553.     But  see  N.  E.  511. 

Foster  f.  Magee,  2  Lans.  (N.  Y.)   182.  87.  McNeely   v.    South   Penn    Oil    Co.,   58 

81.  Edmonds  v.  Mounsey,  15  Ind.  App.  399,      W.  Va.  438,  52  S.  E.  480. 

44  N.  E.  196.  88.  Churchill   v.    Lammers,    60   Mo.    App. 

82.  Augusta  Nat.  Bank  i:  Bones,  75   6a.      244.     And  see  supra,  note  71. 

246.     But  see  Hooks  v.  Forst,   165   Pa.   St.  89.  Churchill   v.    Lammers,    60   Mo.    App. 

238,  30  Atl.  846.  244. 

[IV,  A,  3] 


106    [38  CycJ  TENANCY  IN  COMMON- 

property/"  and  that  thus,  where  cotenants  join  in  an  action  ex  delicto  for  trespass 
committed  upon  the  common  property,  a  release  by  one  tenant  in  common  from 
all  liability  for  the  trespass,  as  well  for  his  cotenant  as  for  himself,  such  settlement 
and  release  binds  both  tenants  in  common.  °'  On  the  other  hand  the  rule  is  laid 
down  that  the  ownership  of  the  several  interests  are  so  far  distinct  that,  after 
suit  instituted,  one  cotenant  can  neither  settle  the  action  nor  execute  a  jelease 
without  the  previous  authority  or  the  subsequent  ratification  of  his  cotenants, 
so  as  to  prevent  them  from  proceeding  with  the  suit,  or  as  in  anywise  to  bind 
them  or  their  respective  rights,  although  of  course  the  recovery  in  such  a  suit 
must  be  limited  to  the  extent  of  the  right  of  the  parties  entitled  to  maintain  it.°^ 
Thus  it  is  held  that  liability  for  trespass  on  land  cannot  be  avoided  by  showing 
payment  in  settlement  therefor  to  one  tenant  in  common  of  the  land  without 
the  knowledge  or  consent  of  his  cotenants;  '^  and  one  tenant  in  common  may 
maintain  trespass  for  cutting  and  carrying  away  timber  from  the  common  prop- 
erty, although  the  wrong-doer  has  paid  the  other  tenants  in  common;  ^*  and  a 
release  and  settlement  of  damages  for  trespass  on  land  executed  by  one  of  the 
cotenants  does  not  bar  the  others;  °^  and  where  two  tenants  in  common  of  chattels 
join  in  an  action  for  the  conversion  of  the  property,  one  cannot  release  or  settle 
the  action  so  as  to  deprive  his  cotenant  of  his  remedy ;°°  but  the  action  may 
proceed  in  the  name  of  both  for  the  benefit  of  the  one  not  releasing,  or  an  amend- 
ment can  be  made  by  striking  out  the  name  of  the  one  releasing."'  Where  one 
cotenant  brings  a  suit  for  his  portion  of  the  damage  sustained  by  the  common 
property,  the  release  of  the  other  tenant  is  no  discharge. °*  If  a  tenant  in  common 
releases  an  insurer  of  the  common  property  on  receipt  of-  his  share  of  the  loss,  his 
cotenant  may  either  recover  from  him  the  fxill  amount  of  such  cotenant's  loss, 
in  the  proportion  of  the  insurance  to  the  loss,  or  he  may  adopt  the  adjustment 
and  sue  in  assumpsit  for  his  share  of  the  money  had  and  received." 

4.  Notice  to  One  Cotenant  as  Notice  to  All.  Ordinarily  notice  to  one  cotenant 
in  relation  to  the  title  is  not  binding  on  his  fellows  therein.^  But  where  they  are 
jointly  pursuing  a  common  enterprise  as  tenants  in  common  notice  to  one,  in 
the  premises,  is  notice  to  all;  so,  where  one  of  them  is  acting  as  agent  for  his 
fellows,  notice  to  such  agent,  in  the  premises,  is  notice  to  them.^ 

5.  Estoppel  and  Satification.  Tenants  in  common,  being  owners  of  several 
interests,  may  ratify  the  acts  of  each  other  or  acquiesce  therein;  and  generally 
such  ratification  or  acquiescence  with  full  knowledge  of  material  facts  is  effective; ' 

90.  Hodges  v.  Heal,  80  Me.  281,  14  Atl.  11,  601,  9  L.  R.  A.  584  (acquiescence  in  a  volun- 

6  Am.  St.  Eep.  199  tary  partition  by  quitclaim  deed)  ;  Primm  v. 

■91.  Bradley  v.    Boynton,    22   Me.    287,    39  Walker,  38  Mo.  94    (acquiescence  in  the  di- 

Am.    Dec.    582;    Decker    v.    Livingston,    15  vision  of  a  larger  tract  into  many   smaller 

Johns      (N.    Y.)     479;    Austin    v.    Hall,    13  lots);    Streeter   v.   Shultz,   45   Hun    (N.   Y.) 

Johns.   (N.  Y.)   286,  7  Am.  Dec.  376.  406    la/firmed   in    127   N.   Y.   652,   27   N.   E. 

92.  Jackson  r.  Moore,  94  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  857]  (acquiescence  in  the  purchase  of  an 
504,  87  N.  Y.  Suppl.  1101.  outstanding  title  for  the  sole  benefit  of  the 

93.  Wagoner  v.  Silva,  139  Cal.  559,  73  purchaser)  ;  Whitehead  v.  Seanor,  197  Pa.  St. 
Pac.  433.  511,   47   Atl.   978    (conduct  amounting  to  a 

94.  Longfellow  v.  Quimby,  29  Me.  196,  48  waiver  of  the  benefit  of  an  adjudication  and 
Am.  Dec.  525.  the  recognition  of  a  cotenancy). 

95.  Gillum  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  4  Confirming  or  ratifying  unauthorized  con- 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  622,  23  S.  W.  716;  Tallman  veyance  see  Johnston  v.  Jones,  85  Ala.  286, 
V.  Barnes,  54  Wis.  181,  11  N.  W.  478.  4  So.  748;  Eyason  v.  Dunten,  164  Ind.  85   73 

96.  Gock  V.  Keneda,  29  Barb.  (N.  Y.)   120.  N.  E.  74;  Johnson  v.  Stevens,  7  Cush.  (Mass.) 

97.  Grock  V.  Keneda,  29  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  431;  Dall  v.  Brown,  5  Cush.  (Mass.)  239; 
120.  Stuart  v.  Mattern,  141  Mich.  686,  105  N.  w' 

98.  Wilson  v.  Gamble,  9  N.  H.  74.  35 ;  Nalle  f.  Parks,   173  Mo.   616    73   S    W 

99.  Briggs  f.  Call,  5  Mete.   (Mass.)   504.  596;    Nalle   t:    Thompson,    173    Mo     595     73 

1.  Wiswall  V.  McGown,  2  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  S.  W.  599;  Wheeler  v.  Taylor,  32  Ores  '42I 
270  [affirmed  in  10  N.  Y.  465];  Parker  v.  52  Pac.  183,  67  Am.  St.  Eep.  540-  Pheins  v 
Kane,  4  Wis.  1,  65  Am.  Dec.  283.  Conant,  30  Vt.  277. 

2.  NefF  V.  Elder,  84  Ark.  277,  105  S.  W.  Acquiescence  in  a  conveyance  by  metes  and 
260;  Ward  v.  Warren,  82  >f.  Y.  265.  bounds  see  Currens  r.  Lauderdale    118  Tenn 

3.  Davidson  f.  Coon,  125  Ind.  497,  25  N.  E.      496,   101   S.   W.   431.     See   also  Davidson  a' 
[IV,  A,  3] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc]     107. 


and  after  such  ratification  or  acquiescence  the  ratifying  parties  and  their  respective 
grantees  are  estopped  from  denying  the  effect  thereof.*  A  tenant  in  common  is 
estopped  from  nullifying  a  material  act  in  relation  to  the  common  property  of 
which  he  has  accepted  and  retained  the  benefit,  with  full  knowledge  of  all  material 
circumstances  in  relation  thereto,  or  which  he  has  ratified  or  in  which  he  has 
acquiesced;  and  so  is  his  grantee  or  licensee;  ^  and  he  may  be  estopped  if  he  has 
advised  or  urged  such  act."  But  mere  absence  for  a  long  time,'  or  the  use  of  the 
name  of  a  tenant  in  common  as  party  in  a  suit  concerning  the  common  property, 
without  such  tenant's  knowledge  or  authority,  is  not  sufficient  to  estop  him  from 
asserting  his  interest  in  the  land; '  nor  is  he  estopped  by  unauthorized  declara- 
tions or  acts  of  his  cotenants;  °  and  a  cotenant  is  not  ordinarily  estopped  because 
of  an  alleged  fraud,  which  failed  of  results.^"  A  tenant  in  common  is  not  estopped, 
in  the  absence  of  fraud,  from  insisting  upon  his  rights  as  such  because  of  mere 
silence  on  his  part,  unless  there  was  a  legal  duty  upon  him  to  speak  or  act  in  the 
premises  and  such  silence  caused  injury  to  the  party  seeking  the  benefit  of  an 
estoppel  as  against  him;  '^  nor  is  he  estopped  from  avoiding  a  sheriff's  deed 
to  his  cotenant  by  accepting  a  part  of  the  purchase-money,  in  the  absence  of 
a  fair  disclosure  of  surrounding  circumstances  by  said  purchasing  cotenant. ^^ 
An  estoppel  operating  against  one  tenant  in  common  in  relation  to  the  common 
property  may  be  defeated  by  an  assertion  of  the  rights  of  his  non-estopped 
cotenants." 


Coon,  125  Ind.  497,  25  N   B.  601,  9  L.  E.  A. 
584. 

A  bill  for  discovery  and  an  accounting  for 
rentals  under  an  unauthorized  lease  and  ex- 
pressly denying  the  title  of  the  lessor  and 
the  validity  of  the  lease  does  not  amount  to 
a  ratification  thereof.  McNeely  i".  South 
Penn  Oil  Co.,  58  W.  Va.  438,  52  S.  E.  480. 

4.  California. —  Mandeville  v.  Solomon,  39 
Cal.  125. 

Connecticut. —  Goodwin  v.  Keney,  49  Conn. 
563;  Oviatt  v.  Sage,  7  Conn    95. 

Indiana. —  Eyason  v,  Dunten,  164  Ind.  85, 
73  N.  E.  74. 

Missouri. — 'Potter  f.  Herring,  57  Mo.  184; 
Warfield  V.  Lindell,  38  Mo.  561,  90  Am.  Dec. 
443. 

Pennsylva/nia. —  Lancaster  v.  Flowers,  208 
Pa.  St.  199,  57  Atl.  526 ;  Workman  v.  Guthrie, 
29  Pa.  St.  495,  72  Am.  Dec.  654. 

5.  Indiana. —  Jennings  v.  Moon,  135  Ind. 
168,  34  N.  E.  996. 

Maryland. —  Jones  v.  Rose,  96  Md.  483,  54 
Atl   69. 

Missouri. —  Nalle  v.  Thompson,  173  Mo. 
595,  73  S.  W.  599. 

Vew  York. —  Beecher  v.  Bennett,  11  Barb. 
374;  Cornell  v.  Prescott,  2  Barb.  16;  Ten 
Eick  V.  Simpson,  1  Sandf.  Ch.  244. 

Pennsylvania. —  Ramsey  v.  Brown,  (1889) 
17  Atl.  207;  Thompson's  Appeal,  101  Pa.  St. 
225;  Ferson's  Appeal,  96  Pa.  St.   140. 

Tennessee. —  Currens  v.  Lauderdale,  118 
Tenn.  496,  101  S.  W.  431. 

Texas.—  Trammell  v.  McDade,  29  Tex.  360; 
McKey  v.  Welch,  22  Tex.  390. 

Vermont. —  Phelps  v.  Conant,  30  Vt.  277. 

One  acting  under  a  deed  conveying  prop- 
erty in  common  is  estopped  from  denying  the 
title  of  his  cotenant  and  claiming  the  whole 
land  by  title  paramount.  Funk  v.  Newcomer, 
10  Md.  301. 

6.  Crownover  v.  Eandle,  21  La.  Ann.  469. 


7.  Tice  V.  Derby,  59  Iowa  312,  13  N.  W. 
301. 

8.  Keaton  v.  Pennington,  11  S.  W.  198,  10 
Ky.  L.  Eep.  931. 

9.  Iowa. —  Euppert  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co., 
43  Iowa  490. 

North  Carolina. —  Lenoir  v.  Valley  Eiver 
Min.  Co.,  106  N.  C.  473,  11  S.  E.  516. 

Permsylvania. —  Person's  Appeal,  96  Pa.  St. 
140. 

Rhode  Island. —  Dexter  Lime-Eock  Co.  v. 
Dexter,  6  E.  I.  353. 

West  Virginia. —  McNeely  v.  South  Penn 
Oil  Co.,  58  W.  Va.  438,  52  S.  E.  480. 

Recitals  in  deeds  see  Gordon  v.  San  Diego, 
101  Cal.  522,  36  Pac.  18,  40  Am.  St.  Eep.  73, 
32  Pac.  885 ;  Frost  1\  Courtis,  172  Mass.  401, 
52  N.  E.  515;  Thomason  v.  Dayton,  40  Ohio 
St.  63;  Woods  v.  Early,  95  Va.  307,  28  S.  E. 
374. 

10.  Richards  f.  Eichards,  31  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
509. 

11.  Mora  f.  Murphy,  83  Cal.  12,  23  Pac. 
63;  Cooper  v.  Brown,  143  Iowa  482,  122 
N.  W.  144;  Van  Ormer  v.  Harley,  102  Iowa 
150,  71  N.  W.  241;  King  v.  Eeehling,  1 
Dauph.  Co.  Eep.    (Pa.)    137. 

Withdrawing  from  the  common  property 
under  a  mistake  as  to  the  title  thereof  see 
Davenport  k.  Turpin,  43  Cal.  597. 

Standing  by  whilst  cotenant  or  his  licensee 
made  improvements  see  Sanford  v.  Tucker, 
54  Ind.  219. 

Failing  to  object  to  an  unlawful  convey- 
ance by  cotenant  see  Truth  Lodge  No.  213 
A.  F.  &  A.  M.  V.  Barton,  119  Iowa  230,  93 
N.  W.  106,  97  Am.  St.  Eep.  303;  Great  Falls 
Co.  v.  Worster,  15  N.  H.  412;  Newman  v. 
Newman,  27  Gratt.  (Va.)  714. 

12.  Tanney  v.  Tanney,  24  Pittsb.  Leg.  J. 
N.  S.  (Pa.)  43  [affirmed  in  159  Pa.  St.  277, 
28  Atl.  287,  39  Am.  St.  Eep.  678]. 

13.  Mabie  v.  Matteson,  17  Wis.  1. 

[IV,  A,  5] 


108     [38  Cye.J 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


6.  Joint  Contracts;  Leases.  Tenants  in  common  may  bind  themselves  jointly 
concerning  the  common  property."  At  common  law  tenants  in  common,  their 
rights  and  title  being  several,  could  not  make  a  joint  lease,  and  must  in  ejectment 
declare  on  their  several  leases  of  their  several  parts;  '^  but  cotenants  may  now 
let  jointly,  and  where  the  letting  is  joint,  one  cotenant  can  demand  and  receive 
the  whole  rent." 

B.  Sale  or  Conveyance  —  1.  By  One  Cotenant  of  More  Than  His  Share — 
a.  Rule  Stated.  One  tenant  in  common  cannot,  unless  specially  authorized  to 
do  so,  sell  or  dispose  of  more  than  his  own  interest,"  nor  can  a  tenant  in  common 


14.  Cliflford  v.  Meyer,  (Ind.  App.  1893)  33 
N.  E.  127,  6  Ind.  App.  633,  34  N.  E.  23 ;  Wil- 
kinson t" .  Fleming,  2  Ohio  301 ;  Massie  v. 
Long,  2  Ohio  287,  15  Am.  Dec.  547. 

15.  Wilkinson  i.  Hall,  1  Bing.  N.  Cas.  713, 
1  Hodges  170,  6  L.  J.  C.  P.  82,  1  Scott  675, 
27  E.  C.  L.  831;  Haysman  t.  Moon,  7  Mod. 
430,  87  Eng.  Reprint  1337;  Burne  v.  Cam- 
bridge, 1  M.  &  Rob.  53'9;  Heatherley  v.  Wes- 
ton, 2  Wils.  C.  P.  232,  95  Eng.  Reprint  783. 
See  also  Doe  r.  Errington,  1  A.  &  E.  750,  3 
L.  J.  K.  B.  215,  3  N.  &  M.  646,  28  E.  C.  L. 
349,  110  Eng.  Reprint  1394;  Midgley  v.  Love- 
lace, Garth.  289,  90  Eng.  Reprint  771;  Wal- 
lace r.  McLaren,  1  M.  &  R.  516,  31  Rev.  Rep. 
334,  17  E.  C.  L.  685. 

16.  Codman  v.  Hall,  9  Allen  (Mass.)  335; 
Miner  v.  Lorman,  70  Mich.  173,  38  N.  W. 
18;  Griffin  v.  Clark,  33  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  46; 
Sherman  v.  Ballon,  8  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  304; 
Decker  r.  Livingston,  15  Johns.  (N.  Y.) 
479. 

17.  Hewlett  v.  Owens,  51  Cal.  570;  Flem- 
ing z.  Katahdin  Pulp,  etc.,  Co.,  93  Me.  110, 
44  Atl.  378;  Kemper  v.  Ewing,  25  Gratt. 
(Va.)  427;  Wiggins  r.  White,  2  N.  Brunsw. 
97.  Compare  Watson  v.  Union  Red,  etc., 
Gravel  Co.,  50  Mo.  App.  635. 

If  merely  employed  to  manage  the  common 
property,  a  cotenant  cannot  sell  the  whole 
thereof.  Strickland  f.  Parker,  54  Me.  263; 
Watson  t.  Union  Red,  etc..  Gravel  Co.,  50 
Mo.  App.  635. 

He  cannot  employ  an  agent  to  sell  the 
whole  property.  Lipscomb  v.  Watrous,  3  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)   1. 

A  cotenant  cannot  without  authority  sell 
the  right  to  cut  logs  from  the  land  owned  in 
common  so  as  to  pass  the  legal  title  to  the 
purchaser,  and  the  interest  which  the  pur- 
chaser acquires  can  be  asserted  only  in  equity. 
Burt,  etc.,  Lumber  Co.  v.  Clay  City  Lumber 
Co.,  Ill  Ky.  725,  64  S.  W.  652,  23  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  1019. 

One  coparcener  cannot  convey  severally, 
they  must  all  join.  Leyman  l'.  Abeel,  16 
Johns.   (N.  Y.)    30. 

If  the  purchaser  holds  adversely,  the  other 
cotenants  may  bring  ejectment  against  him 
for  their  respective  parte,  or  may  affirm  the 
sale  and  sue  the  vendor  in  assumpsit  for  their 
respective  parts  of  the  purchase-money.  Mur- 
ley  V.  Ennis,  2  Colo.  300. 

A  tenant  in  common  of  a  chattel  cannot 
lawfully  sell  more  than  his  own  interest 
therein.  People  f.  Marshall,  8  Cal.  51;  Car- 
ter v.  Bailey,  64  Me.  458,  18  Am.  Rep.  273; 
Kilgore  v.  Wood,  56  Me.   150,  96  Am.  Dec. 

[IV,  A,  6] 


404;  Dain  ;;.  Cowing,  22  Me.  347,  39  Am. 
Dec.  585;  Weld  t.  Oliver,  21  Pick.  (Mass.) 
559;  Sharp  v.  Benoist,  7  Mo.  App.  534;  White 
v.  Osborn,  21  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  72;  Farr  v. 
Smith,  9  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  338,  24  Am.  Dec. 
162;  Hyde  v.  Stone,  9  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  230,  18 
Am.  Dec.  501;  Wilson  v.  Reed,  3  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)    175;   Logan  r.  Oklahoma  Mill  Co., 

14  Okla.  402,  79  Pac.  103;  Newman  f.  New- 
man, 27  Gratt.  (Va.)  714;  Barton  v.  Wil- 
liams, 5  B.  &  Aid.  395,  7  E.  C.  L.  219,  106 
Eng.  Reprint  1235;  Mayhew  v.  Herrick,  7 
C.  B.  229,  13  Jur.  1078,  18  L.  J.  C.  P.  179, 
62  E.  C.  L.  229;  Farrar  v.  Beswick,  5  L.  J. 
Exeh.  225,  1  M.  &  W.  685,  Tyrw.  &  6.  1053; 
Mason  r.  Norris,  18  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  500. 
Therefore  the  buyer  may  refuse  to  receive 
property  so  sold  for  lack  of  title  in  the 
seller.  Xevels  r.  Kentucky  Lumber  Co.,  108 
Ky.  550,  56  S.  W.  969,  22  Ky.  L.  Rep.  247,  94 
Am.  St.  Rep.  388,  49  L.  R.  A.  416.  But  so 
long  as  waste  is  not  committed  a  tenant  in 
common  may  sell  marketable  timber  growing 
on  the  land,  the  purchaser  taking  a  good 
title;  the  remedy  of  the  other  cotenants,  if 
any,  being  an  accounting  at  law  or  in  equity. 
Gillum  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  338,  23  S.  W.  717. 

Timber. —  A  tenant  in  common  in  a  tract 
of  timber  land  has  no  right  to  sell  more  than 
his  interest  therein,  and  if  he  does  so  the 
buyer  takes  subject  to  the  right  of  the  other 
cotenants  to  partition.  Nevels  v.  Kentucky 
Lumber  Co.,  108  Ky.  550,  56  S.  W.  969,  22 
Ky.  L.  Rep;  247,  49  L.  R.  A.  416,  94  Am. 
St.  Kep.  388;  Hunter  v.  Hodgson,  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.  1906)  95  S.  W.  637;  McDodrill  r.  Par- 
dee, etc.,  Lumber  Co.,  40  W.  Va.  564,  21 
S.  E.  878;   Allen  v.  Anthony,  1  Meriv.  282, 

15  Rev.  Rep.  113,  35  Eng.  Reprint  679.  He 
may  not  cut  and  sell  logs  from  the  land 
without  the  consent  of  his  cotenants,  so  as 
to  divest  them  of  their  interest  (Nevels  v. 
Kentucky  Lumber  Co.,  108  Ky.  550,  56  S.  W. 
969,  22  Ky.  L.  Rep.  247,  94  Am.  St.  Rep.  388, 
49  L.  R.  A.  416;  State  v.  Judge  Fourth  Judi- 
cial Dist.  Ct.,  52  La.  Ann.  103,  26  So.  769), 
nor  convey  his  undivided  interest  in  timber 
on  the  common  property  so  as  to  injuriously 
aflfect  the  rights  of  his  cotenants  (Gillum  v. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Tex.  Civ.  App.  338, 
23  S.  W.  717).  Where  one  of  several  coten- 
ants cuts  and  removes  timber  under  an  alleged 
license  from  his  cotenants,  the  burden  is  on 
him  to  show  that  said  license  was  uncondi- 
tional and  not  limited  by  the  reservation  'of 
a  lien  on  the  lumber.  Prentiss  v.  Roberts,  49 
Me.  127.     That  defendant  was  servant  of  an 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc]     109 


bar  or  postpone  the  rights  of  his  cotenants  by  such  conveyance  or  act  in  pais,^^ 
particularly  where  he  is  acting  in  fraud  of  the  rights  of  his  cotenants;  ^^  and  a 
sale,  conveyance  of,  or  covenant  to  convey  property  held  in  common,  by  the 
deed  of  one  tenant  in  common,  whatever  it  may  purport  to  convey,  can  have 
no  effect  upon  the  title  and  interest  of  his  cotenants  in  the  absence  of  prior  author- 
ity or  subsequent  ratification,  express  or  implied,  and  it  carries  only  the  undivided 
interest  of  the  grantor,  whatever  the  description.^"    But  if  a  tenant  in  common 


occupying  tenant  in  common  was  no  defense 
in  a  suit  under  a  statute  for  cutting  and 
carrying  away  wood  without  notice  to  the 
cotenants  therein  (Hazen  v.  Wight,  87  Me. 
233,  32  Atl.  887 )  ;  and  the  right  of  action  of 
one  cotenant  against  the  other  for  cutting 
timber  on  the  common  property  is  not  af- 
fected by  the  fact  that  the  complaining  party 
has  theretofore  been  guilty  of  a  like  offense 
(Blake  v.  Milliken,  14  N.  H.  213)  ;  nor  does 
the  acceptance  by  a  cotenant  of  his  propor- 
tion of  the  price  of  a  sale  of  timber  show 
that  such  sale  was  authorized  by  him  (Dwin- 
ell  V.  Larrabee,  38  Me.  464).  There  is  no 
necessity  of  an  allegation  in  the  declaration, 
of  the  kind  of  trees  that  have  been  cut,  and 
if  such  an  allegation  be  made  there  is  no 
necessity  of  offering  evidence  to  sustain  it. 
Maxwell  v.  Maxwell,  31  Me.  184,  50  Am.  Dec. 
657. 

Water  rights. —  A  cotenant,  in  the  absence 
of  special  authority,  cannot  transfer  any 
'greater  interest  in  an  appropriation  of  water 
for  irrigating  purposes,  appurtenant  to  the 
estate,  than  is  commensurate  to  his  own 
interest.  Crary  v.  Campbell,  24  Cal.  634; 
Forrest  Milling  Co.  v.  Cedar  Falls  Mill  Co., 
103  Iowa  619,  72  N.  W.  1076;  Beers  V. 
Sharpe,  44  Oreg.  386,  75  Pac.  717. 

A  grantee  of  a  tenant  in  common  of  land 
cannot  maintain  ejectment  against  his  grant- 
or's cotenants,  they  having  recognized  each 
other's  possession.  Wittenbrock  v.  Wheadon, 
128  Cal.  150,  60  Pac.  664,  79-  Am.  St.  Kep. 
32  (holding  that  a  purchaser  of  the  land 
from  one  tenant  in  common  cannot,  merely 
because  of  such  purchase,  eject  the  cotenants 
therein  who  had  not  joined  in  the  deed)  ; 
Tansman  v.  Faris,  59  Cal.  663. 

18.  California. —  Gates  v.  Salmon,  35  Cal. 
576,  95  Am.  Dec.  139. 

Connecticut. —  Griswold  v.  Johnson,  5  Conn. 
363. 

Illinois.—  Stookey  v.  Carter,  92  111.  129. 

Massachusetts. —  Rising  v.  Stannard,  17 
Mass.  282;  Baldwin  v.  Whiting,  13  Mass. 
57;  Varuum  v.  Abbot,  12  Mass.  474,  7  Am. 
Dec.  87;  Bartlet  v.  Harlow,  12  Mass.  348,  7 
Am.  Dec.  76;  Porter  v.  Hill,  9  Mass.  34,  6 
Am.  Deo.  22. 

Michigan. — 'Petit  v.  Flint,  etc.,  K.  Co.,  114 
Mich.  362,  72  N.  W.  238. 

Nevada. —  Hoopes  v.  Meyer,  1  Nev.  433. 

Nem  Hampshire. —  Great  Falls  Co.  v.  Wors- 
ter,  15  N.  H.  412 ;  Jeffers  v.  Radcliff,  10  N.  H. 
242. 

New  Jersey. —  Boston  Franklinite  Co.  V. 
Condit,  1«  N.  J.  Eq.  394. 

Pennsylvania. —  McKinley  v.  Peters,  111  Pa. 
St.  283,  3  Atl.  27;  Coursin's  Appeal,  79  Pa. 
St.  220. 


Tennessee. —  Jewett  v.  Stockton,  3  Yerg. 
492,  24  Am.  Dec.  594. 

Texas. —  Good  v.  Coombs,  28  Tex.  34;  Mc- 
Key  V.  Welch,  22  Tex.  390. 

Wisconsin. —  Smith  v.  Clarke,  7  Wis.  551. 

Canada. —  McLellan  v.  McDougall,  28  Nova 
Scotia  237. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  130  e«  seq. 

Upon  delivery  of  a  deed  of  the  common 
land  by  one  cotenant  and  purchase-money 
bond  and  mortgage  taken  in  his  own  name 
his  cotenants  may  recover  their  share  of  the 
purchase-price  from  him  even  though  the 
bond  has  not  been  paid.  Knope  v.  Nunn,  81 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  349,  30  N.  Y.  Suppl.  896 
[affirmed  in  151  N.  Y.  506,  45  N.  E.  940,  56 
Am.  St.  Kep.  642]. 

19.  Small  V.  Eobinson,  9  Hun  (N.  Y.)  418. 
The  defrauded  cotenant  is  entitled  to  a  pro 

rata  share  of  the  profits  thus  received.  Garr 
V.  Boswell,  38  S.  W.  513,  18  Ky.  L.  Kep. 
814. 

20.  California. —  Gordon  v.  San  Diego,  101 
Cal.  522,  36  Pac.  18,  40  Am.  St.  Kep.  73, 
(1893)   32  Pac.  885. 

Colorado.—  Gillett  v.   Gaffney,  3   Colo.   35. 

Connecticut. —  Adams  v.  Manning,  51  Conn. 
5;  Mitchell  v.  Hazen,  4  Conn.  495,  10  Am. 
Dec.  169. 

Georgia. —  Sewell  v.  Holland,  61  Ga.  608. 

lowa.—  Tice  v.  Derby,  59  Iowa  312,  13 
N.  W.  301. 

Kentucky. —  Burt,  etc.,  Lumber  Co.  v.  Clay 
City  Lumber  Co.,  Ill  Ky.  725,  64  S.  W.  652, 
23  Ky.  L.  Kep.  1019;  Chiles  v.  Jones,  7 
Dana  528.  See  Daniel  v.  Bratton,  1  Dana 
209. 

Louisiana. —  Crownover  v.  Randle,  21  La. 
Ann.  469. 

Maine. —  Fleming  v.  Katahdin  Pulp,  etc., 
Co.,  93  Me.  110,  44  Atl.  378;  Moore  v.  Gib- 
son, 53  Me.  551. 

Massachusetts. —  Marks  v.  Sewall,  120 
Mass.  174;  Tainter  v.  Cole,  120  Mass.  162; 
Matthews  v.  Bliss,  22  Pick.  48. 

Michigan. —  Wright  v.  Kaynor,  150  Mich. 
7,  113  N.  W.  779;  Dumas  v.  Geer,  144  Mich. 
377,  108  N.  W.  84;  Moreland  v.  Strong,  115 
Mich.  211,  73  N.  W.  140,  69  Am.  St.  Rep. 
553;  Palmer  v.  Williams,  24  Mich.  328,  hold- 
ing that  an  owner  of  real  property  in  com- 
mon with  others,  but  in  whose  name  the 
title  to  the  whole  has  been  put,  and  who 
holds  as  trustee  for  all  parties,  has  no  au- 
thority to  sell  without  their  knowledge  and 
consent. 

Minnesota. —  Lovcridge  v.  Coles,  72  Minn. 
57,  74  N.  W.  1109. 

Missouri. —  Childs  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  (1891)   17  S.  W.  954. 

[IV,  B,  l,a] 


110     [38  Cye.] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


is  duly  authorized  to  sell  the  entire  common  property,  and  he  makes  a  contract 
of  sale,  then  his  cotenants  and  their  grantees  with  notice  are  bound  thereby;  ^' 
and  even  an  unauthorized  lease  or  conveyance  of  an  interest  in  land  by  a  tenant 
in  common  is  good  as  against  himself  and  those  claiming  under  him  and  is  voidable 
at  the  election  of  his  cotenants  and  those  claiming  under  them,  only  in  so  far  as 
it  operates  to  their  prejudice,  being  valid  against  everyone  unless  so  avoided.^^ 


'Nebraska. —  Jackson  v.  O'Korke,  71  Nebr. 
418,  98  N.  W.  1068;  JoUiffe  r.  Maxwell,  3 
Nebr.   (Unoff.)   244,  91  N.  W.  563. 

New  Hampshire. —  White  v.  Brooks,  43 
N.  H.  402. 

New  Forfc.— Partridge  v.  Eaton,  63  N.  Y. 
482;  Edwards  v.  Bishop,  4  N.  Y.  61;  Sher- 
man Lime  Co.  v.  Glens  Falls,  42  Misc.  440, 
87  N.  Y.  Suppl.  95  [reversed  on  other  grounds 
in  101  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  269,  91  N.  Y.  S-uppl. 
994] ;  Cuyler  v.  Bradt,  2  Cai.  Cas.  326 ;  Ten 
Eick  V.  Simpson,  1  Sandf.  Ch.  244. 

North  Carolina. —  See  Locke  v.  Alexander, 
9  N.  C.  155,  11  Am.  Dec.  750. 

Pennsylvania. —  Browning  v.  Cover,  108 
Pa.  St.  595;  Keisel  v.  Earnest,  21  Pa.  St.  90. 

Philippine. —  Lopez  ;;.  Ilustre,  5  Philip- 
pine 567. 

South  Carolina. —  Coleman  r.  Coleman,  71 
S.  C.  518,  51  S.  E.  250;  Duke  v.  Postal  Tel. 
Cable  Co.,  71  S.  C.  95,  50  S.  E.  675;  Charles- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Leech,  33  S.  C.  175,  11 
S.  E.  631,  26  Am.  St.  Eep.  667. 

Tennessee. —  Currens  v.  Lauderdale,  118 
Tenn.  496,  101  S.  W.  431. 

Texas. —  Hunter  v.  Hodgson,  (Civ.  App. 
1906)  95  S.  W.  637;  Broom  v.  Pearson, 
(Civ.  App.  1904)  81  S.  W.  753  [modified  in 
98  Tex.  469,  85  S.  W.  790,  86  S.  W.  733]. 

Utah. —  Manti  City  Sav.  Bank  v.  Peterson, 
33  Utah  209,  93  Pac.  566,  126  Am.  St.  Eep. 
817. 

Vermont.— Bigelow  v.  Topliff,  25  Vt.  273, 
60  Am.  Dec.  264. 

Virginia. —  Woods  v.  Early,  95  Va.  307,  28 
S.  E.  374;  Kemper  v.  Ewing,  25  Gratt.  427. 

West  Virginia. —  Parker  v.  Brast,  45  W. 
Va.  399,  32  S.  E.  269. 

England. —  Heath  v.  Hubbard,  4  East  101, 
4  Esp.  205,  102  Eng.  Eeprint  771. 

Canada. —  Shaw  v.  Grant,  2  N.  Brunsw. 
196;  Wiggins  v.  White,  2  N.  Brunsw.  179; 
Mcintosh  V.  Ontario  Bank,  19  Grant  Ch. 
(U.  C.)    155. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  130  et  seq. 

A  lease  by  one  tenant  in  common  of  the 
right  to  take  oysters  without  the  consent  of 
his  cotenant  does  not  give  the  lessee  an  ex- 
clusive right  as  against  subsequent  lessees  of 
the  cotenant;  and  it  is  immaterial  that  the 
first  lessee  expended  money  and  labor  in 
making  the  bed  productive.  Mott  v.  Under- 
wood, 78  Hun  (N.  Y.)  509,  26  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
307  [affirmed  in  148  N.  Y.  463,  42  N.  E.  1048, 
51  Am.  St.  Rep.  711,  32  L.  R.  A.  270]. 

A  cotenant  selling  the  whole  tract  of  land 
without  authority  from  his  coiiwners  is  not 
a  trustee  for  his  cotenants  for  their  share  of 
the  purchase-money,  as  the  legal  title  of  the 
cotenants  not  assenting  to  the  sale  remains 
in  the  land,  and  they  have  their  remedy  at 
law.    Milton  v.  Hogue,  39  N.  C.  415. 

[IV,  B,  1,  a] 


21.  Michenor  r.  Reinach,  49  La.  Ann.  360, 
21  So.  552;  Cline  i:  Stradlee,  (Tenn.  Ch. 
App.  1898)  48  S.  W.  272  (sale  by  cotenant 
and  repurchase  for  himself)  ;  Cecil  v.  Clark, 
49  W.  Va.  459,  39  S.  E.  202;  McWhinne  v. 
Martin,  77  Wis.  182,  46  N.  W.  118. 

A  third  person  with  notice  taking  title  to 
said  property  holds  as  a  trustee  for  the  for- 
mer vendee.  Lesslie  v.  Worthington,  Wright 
(Ohio)    628. 

Authority  to  sell  cannot  be  proven  by 
declarations  of  the  alleged  agent  made  in 
the  absence  of  the  principal  alleged  to  be 
bound.  Lipscomb  v.  Watrous,  3  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  1. 

23.  California. —  Wittenbrock  v.  Wheadon, 
128  Cal.  150,  60  Pac.  664,  79  Am.  St.  Eep.  32; 
Hager  r.  Spect,  52  Cal.  579 ;  Stark  v.  Barrett, 
15  Cal.  361. 

Kentucky. —  Nevels  v.  Kentucky  Lumber 
Co.,  108  Ky.  550,  56  S.  W.  969,  22  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  247,  94  Am.  St.  Rep.  388,  49  L.  E.  A. 
416;  Ballentine  v.  Joplin,  105  Ky.  70,  48 
S.  W.  417,  20  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1062. 

Massachusetts. —  Kimball  v.  Common- " 
wealth  Ave.  St.  R.  Co.,  173  Mass.  152,  53 
N.  E.  274;  Frost  v.  Courtis,  172  Mass.  401,  52 
N.  E.  515;  Nichols  17.  Smith,  22  Pick.  316; 
De  Witt  V.  Harvey,  4  Gray  486;  Johnson  r. 
Stevens,  7  Cush.  431 ;  Varnum  v.  Abbot,  12 
Mass.  474,  7  Am.  Dec.  87. 

Michigan. —  Moreland  i:  Strong,  115  Mich. 
211,  73  N.  W.  140,  69  Am.  St.  Rep.  553; 
Benedict  v.  Torrent,  83  Mich.  181,  47  N.  W. 
129,  21  Am.  St.  Eep.  589,  11  L.  E.  A.  278; 
Eichey  i,.  Brown,  58  Mich.  435,  25  N.  W. 
386;  Campau  v.  Godfrey,  18  Mich.  27,  100 
Am.  Dec.  133. 

Mississippi. —  Kenoye  v.  Brown,  82  Miss. 
607,  35  So.  163,  100  Am.  St.  Rep.  645. 

Missouri. —  Benoist  v.  Rothschild,  145  Mo. 
399,  46  S.  W.  1081 ;  Primm  r.  Walker,  38  Mo. 
94. 

New  Hampshire. —  Hallett  v.  Parker,  68 
N.  K.  598,  39  Atl.  433 ;  Whitton  v.  Whitton, 
38  N.  H.  127,  75  Am.  Dec.  163. 

New  Jersey. —  Boston  Franklinite  Co.  v. 
Condit,  19  N.  J.  Eq.  394;  Holcomb  v.  Coryell, 
11  N.  J.  Eq.  548. 

Pennsylvania. —  McKinley  v.  Peters,  111 
Pa.  St.  283,  3  Atl.  27. 

Rhode  Island. —  Crocker  v.  Tiffany,  9  R.  I 
505. 

Texas.— Wade  v.  Boyd,  24  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
492,  60  S.  W.  360. 

Vermont. —  McElroy  v.  McLeay,  71  Vt.  396, 
45  Atl.  898. 

Virginia. —  Woods  v.  Early,  95  Va.  307,  28 
S.  E.  374. 

West  Virginia.— Boggeaa  v.  Meredith,  16 
W.  Va.  1. 

Wisconsin. —  Martens  v.  O'Connor,  101  Wis 
18,  76  N.  W.  774. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc]     111 


Parol  evidence  is  admissible  to  show  authorization  or  ratification  of  a  sale  by  one 
cotenant  of  the  entire  property  so  as  to  create  the  necessary  privity  between 
parties  to  an  accounting.^^  A  purchaser  from  a  cotenant  with  notice,  actual  or 
constructive,  of  the  character  of  his  title  is  bound  by  such  notice,  and  will  be 
limited  in  his  holding  to  the  actual  interest  of  his  grantor.^* 

b.  Batlfleatlon;  Estoppel.  An  unauthorized  sale  or  conveyance  of  the  whole 
property  by  one  tenant  in  common  may  be  ratified  by  the  others.^^  The  non- 
consenting  cotenant  may  be  estopped  from  denying  the  passage  of  title  to  the 
vendee  if  he  does  any  act  to  ratify  or  confirm  the  sale;  ^°  and  although  the  unauthor- 
ized sale  of  a  chattel  by  a  tenant  in  common  therein  does  not  affect  his  cotenant' s 
interest,  it  operates  against  the  vendor  as  an  estoppel.^'  A  tenant  in  common 
claiming  under  a  sale  of  or  contract  in  relation  to  the  whole  property,  by  his 
cotenant,  or  approving  and  adopting  such  sale  or  contract,  ratifies  it;  and  if  the 
moneys  due  thereunder  have  been  paid  to  the  contracting  cotenant  in  accordance 
with  the  terms  of  such  sale  or  contract,  his  cotenant  cannot  recover  against  the 
vendee  or  obligor  therein.^' 

e.  Remedies  of  Non-Consenting  Cotenants.  The  non-consenting  cotenant 
may  recover  the  value  of  his  undivided  interest  in  such  property,  or  may  claim 
cotenancy  therein  with  the  vendee;^'  and  may  usually  follow  the  property  in 
the  hands  of  a  purchaser  or  recover  its  value  from  the  wrong-doer;^"  and  as  the 
sale  of  the  common  property  by  a  tenant  in  common  therein,  or  one  claiming 
under  him,  without  the  consent  of  his  cotenants,  does  not  pass  title  of  the  non- 
consenting  cotenants'  interest,  they  may  maintain  trover  against  the  purchaser 
of  the  common  property  for  his  subsequent  conversion,''  and  the  purchaser  may. 


United  States. —  Lamb  v.  Wakefield,  14 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,024,  1  Sawy.  251. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  132  et  seq. 

If  the  complaining  cotenant  has  been  guilty 
of  laches,  the  conveyance  will  be  upheld  even 
against  him.  Kyason  v.  Dunten,  164  Ind.  85, 
73  N.  E.  74. 

Lessee  cannot  take  advantage  of  non- 
consent.  •  If  the  cotenants  who  do  not  con- 
sent to  a  lease  by  one  of  their  number  of  the 
whole  property  do  not  interfere  with  such 
lessee  he  cannot  avoid  the  lease  because  of 
said  non-consent.  Colorado  Fuel,  etc.,  Co.  v, 
Pryor,  25  Colo.  540,  57  Pac.  51 ;  Moreland  v. 
Strong,  115  Mich.  211,  73  N.  W.  140,  69 
Am.  St.  Eep.  553;  Martens  f.  O'Connor,  101 
Wis.  18,  76  N.  W.  774. 

23.  Oviatt  V.  Sage,  7  Conn.  95. 

24.  Parker  v.  Brast,  45  W.  Va.  399,  32 
S.  E.  269. 

25.  Osborn  v.  Schenck,  83  N.  Y.  201. 

The  unauthorized  sale  of  a  chattel  by  one 
tenant  in  common  may  be  ratified  by  his  co- 
tenants,  or  they  may  continue  to  hold 
their  interest  therein.  Rogers  v.  White,  6 
Me.  193;  Osborn  v.  Schenck,  83  N.  Y.  201. 
See  also  Beecher  v.  Bennett,  11  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
374. 

Retention  of  the  common  property  by  the 
cotenant  refusing  to  ratify  a  sale  thereof  is 
not  the  basis  of  an  action  for  conversion. 
Rodermund  v.  Clark,  46  N.  Y.  354. 

26.  Nalle  v.  Parks,  173  Mo.  616,  73  S.  W. 
596. 

27.  Trammell  v.  McDade,  29  Tex.  360. 

28.  Musser  v.  Hill,  17  Mo.  App.  169;  Perry 
V.  Granger,  21  Nebr.  579,  33  N.  W.  261; 
Phelps  V.  Conant,  30  Vt.  277. 

29.  Nevels  v.  Kentucky  Lumber  Co.,    108 


Ky.  550,  56  S.  W.  969,  22  Ky.  L.  Kep.  247, 
94  Am.  St.  Eep.  388,  49  L.  R.  A.  416;  Bal- 
lentine  v.  Joplin,  105  Ky.  70,  48  S.  W.  417, 
20  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1062;  Benedict  v.  Torrent,  83 
Mich.  181,  47  N.  W.  129,  21  Am.  St.  Rep. 
589,  11  L.  R.  A.  278;  Richey  i;.  Brown,  58 
Mich.  435,  25  N.  W.  386 ;  Ashland  Lodge  No. 
63  I.  0.  O.  F.  f.  Williams,  100  Wis.  223,  75 
N.  W.  954,   69  Am.   St.   Rep.  912. 

Bill  against  absent  defendant. — A  bill  may 
be  filed  against  an  absent  defendant  and  his 
grantor  for  confirmation  of  a  sale,  and  a 
decree  against  the  vendor  for  a  share  of  the 
purchase-money,  where  a  tenant  in  common 
has  sold  the  common  property  to  said  absent 
defendant.  Pollard  v.  Coleman,  4  Call  (Va. ) 
245. 

30.  Georgia. —  Starnes  v.  Quin,  6  Ga.   84. 
Massachusetts. —  Weld  V.   Oliver,  21    Pick. 

559. 

New  Yorh. —  Ferris  i).  Nelson,  60  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  430,  69  N.  Y.  Suppl.  999,  tenants 
in  common  by  devise. 

Oklahoma. — ^  Logan  v.  Oklahoma  Mill  Co., 
14  Okla.  402,  79  Pac.  103. 

Pennsylvania. —  Coursin's  Appeal,  79  Pa. 
St.   220. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  132  et  seq. 

Reinvested  proceeds  of  unauthorized  sale. 
—  The  proceeds  of  an  unauthorized  sale  by 
one  cotenant  of  the  entire  common  property 
cannot  be  followed  by  another  cotenant  into 
a  business  in  which  such  proceeds  have  been 
invested,  so  as  to  entitle  the  wronged  co- 
tenant  to  an  accounting.  Coursin's  Appeal, 
79  Pa.  St.  220. 

31.  Georgia. —  Starnes  v.  Quin,  6  Ga.  84. 
Kentucky . —  Nevels    v.    Kentucky    Lumber 

Co.,  108  Ky.  550,  56  S.  W.  969,  22  Ky.  L. 

[IV,  B,  1,  e] 


112     [38  Cye.J 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


in  equity,  be  held  to  be  a  trustee  for  the  non-consenting  cotenants.^^  A  cotenant 
receiving  the  entire  sales  price  must  account  therefor  and  if  without  authority 
he  sells 'the  common  property  for  credit  he  must  account  therefor  as  though  he 
had  sold  it  for  cash,^  and  the  same  principle  applies  where  instead  of  selling  for 
credit  the  sale  is  made  in  exchange  of  property.'*  If  a  tenant  in  common 
authorized  or  ratified  the  sale  of  the  common  property  by  his  cotenant,  he  may 
maintain  an  action  against  the  purchaser  for  his  share  of  the  price. ^^ 

2.  Of  Cotenant's  Undivided  Interest.'"  A  tenant  in  common  may  convey  his 
undivided  interest,  or  may  mortgage  it  or  act  in  relation  thereto  as  its  owner  so 
long  as  he  does  not  prejudice  the  rights  of  his  cotenants  in  the  premises,''  even 


Rep.  247,  94  Am.  St.  Rep.  388,  49  L.  R.  A. 
416. 

Maine. —  Miller  v.  Thompson,  60  Me.  322. 

Pennsylvania. —  Coursin's  Appeal,  79  Pa. 
St.  220 ;  Agnew  r.  Johnson,  17  Pa.  St.  373,  55 
Am.  Dec.  565. 

Texas. —  Worsham  v.  Vignal,  5  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  471,  24  S.  W.  562. 

Vermont.—  White  c.  Morton,  22  Vt.  15,  52 
Am.  Dec.  75. 

United  States. —  Duff  v.  Bindley,  16  Fed. 
178. 

Canada. —  McLellan  v.  McDougall,  28  Nova 
Scotia  237,  purchaser  at  a  sheriff's  sale  re- 
selling part  of  Ms  purchase  held  liable. 

The  sale  of  the  entire  common  property  by 
the  moitgagee  of  one  cotenant,  with  notice 
to  the  purchaser,  terminates  the  cotenancy, 
and  the  vendee  is  a  joint  tort-feasor  with  the 
vendor.  Van  Doren  v.  Baity,  11  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
239. 

Recovery  is  limited  to  plaintiff's  equitable 
interest.  Gerndt  v.  Conradt,  117  Wis.  15,  93 
N.  W.  804. 

Mere  demand  for  payment  in  order  to  save 
further  trouble  and  expense,  of  a  vendee  with 
knowledge  or  with  information  of  the  de- 
mandant's title,  was  held  neither  to  ratify 
the  sale  nor  to  constitute  a  waiver  of  the 
right  of  action  against  said  vendee.  Weld 
17.  Oliver,  21  Pick.   (Mass.)   559. 

32.  Ennis  v.  Hutchinson,  30  N.  J.  Eq.  110. 
Where  there  is  ample  remedy  at  law,  this 

will  not  be  done.  Mason  v.  Norris,  18 
Grant  Ch.   (U.  C.)   500. 

33.  Hammer  v.  Johnson,  44  111.  192; 
Walker  v.  Evans,  98  Mo.  App.  301,  71  S.  W. 
1086;  Wright  v.  Wright,  59  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 
176.     Compare  Rogers  v.  White,  6  Me.  193. 

But  the  price  received  by  the  grantor  is 
not  held  by  him  as  trustee  for  his  cotenants. 
Milton  i:  Hogue,  39  N.  C.  415. 

34.  Miller  r.  Miller,  7  Pick.  (Mass.)  133, 
19   Am.  Dec.  264. 

Mortgagees  of  some  of  the  cotenants  re- 
ceiving the  rents  of  the  mortgaged  property 
must  account  to  the  others  of  them  for  their 
respective  shares  thereof.  Mcintosh  c.  On- 
tario Bank,  20  Grant  Ch.    (U.  C.)    24. 

35.  Oviatt  V.  Sage,  7  Conn.  95;  Putnam  v. 
Wise,  1  Hill   (N.  Y.)  234,  37  Am.  Dec.  309. 

Reconveyance  of  note;  surrender. —  Where 
a  tenant  in  common  made  an  authorized  sale 
of  the  entire  common  property  and  accepted 
a  note  therefor,  and  subsequentlj'  purchased 
it  for  himself  from  the  makers  of  the  note, 
and  surrendered  the  note  to  them,  they  were 

[IV,  By  1,  e] 


not  liable  at  the  suit  of  the  vendor's  co- 
tenants,  the  cotenants'  remedy  being  against 
the  vendor.  Cline  p.  Stradlee,  (Tenn.  Ch. 
App.  1898)  48  S.  W.  272.  See  also  Mills  v. 
Hart,  24  Colo.  505,  52  Pac.  680,  65  Am.  St. 
Rep.  241;  Hodgson  v.  Fowler,  24  Colo.  278, 
50  Pac.  1034;  Cecil  v.  Clark,  44  W.  Va.  659, 
30  S.  E.  216. 

36.  As  creating  a  tenancy  in  common  be- 
tween purchaser  and  other  cotenants  see 
supra,  II,  A. 

As  severing  the  tenancy  between  the  seller 
and  his  cotenants  see  supra,  II,  B. 

37.  California. —  Middlecoff  v.  Cronise,  155 
Cal.  185,  100  Pac.  232;  Stark  v.  Barrett,  15 
Cal.  361;   People  v.  Marshall,  8  Cal.  51. 

Connecticut. —  Barnum  v.  Landon,  25  Conn. 
137. 

Kansas. —  Jones  f.  Way,  78  Kan.  535,  97 
Pac.  437,  18  L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  1180. 

Maryland. —  Reinioker  v.  Smith,  2  Harr.  & 
J.  421. 

Michigan. —  Mee  v.  Be"nedict,  98  Mich.  260, 
57  N.  W.  175,  39  Am.  St.  Rep.  543,  22  L.  R. 
A.  641;  Ruppe  v.  Steinbach,  48  Mich.  465,  12 
N.  W.  658;  Campau  v.  Campau,  44  Mich.  31, 
5  N.  W.  1062. 

New  Jersey. —  King  v.  Wilson,  54  N.  J. 
Eq.  247,  34  Atl.  394. 

New  York. —  Mersereau  v.  Norton,  15 
Johns.   179. 

Philippine. —  Lopez  v.  Ilustre,  5  Philip- 
pine 567. 

Rhode  Island. —  Crocker  v.  Tiffany,  9  R.  I. 
505. 

South  Carolina. —  Boyce  v.  Coster,  4 
Strobh.  Eq.  25. 

Vermont. —  McElroy  v.  McLeay,  71  Vt.  396, 
45  Atl.  898. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  133  ef  seq. 

One  tenant  in  common  may  enfeoff  another. 
Heatherley  i:  Weston,  2  Wils.  C.  P.  232, 
95  Eng.  Reprint  783. 

If  a  tenant  in  common  conveys  a  certain 
share  of  his  interest  of  the  common  property, 
less  than  his  whole  interest,  or  if  he  conveys 
a  certain  number  of  acres  less  than  his  pro- 
portionate niumber  of  acres  in  the  whole  prop- 
erty, it  will  operate  to  convey  a  propor- 
tionate share  in  the  whole  tract  and  the  ten- 
ancy in  common  of  said  grantor  is  not  sev- 
ered, although  said  grantee  therein  may  be 
entitled  to  rights  and  remedies  incident  to 
the  tenancy  in  common.  Moragne  v.  Doe,  143 
Ala.  459,  39  So.  161,  111  Am.  St.  Rep.  52; 
Campau  V,   Campau,  44  Mich.   31,  5  N.  W. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cye.J     113 


though  the  common  estate  can  be  partitioned  only  by  sale;  ^'  or  consists  of  two 
or  more  separate  tracts,^"  and  the  same  rule  obtains  in  the  case  of  chattels  owned 
in  common.^"    But  the  grantees  under  a  conveyance  by  one  cotenant,  cannot, 


1062 ;  Great  Falls  Co.  v.  Worcester,  15  N.  H. 
412;  Gratz  v.  Land,  etc.,  Imp.  Co.,  S2  Fed. 
381,  27  C.  C.  A.  305,  40  L.  R.  A.  393.  Such 
a  conveyance  is  not  void  but  passes  the  con- 
veyed interest  of  the  grantor.  McLeran  v. 
Benton,  73  Cal.  329,  14  Pao.  879,  2  Am.  St. 
Eep.  814;  Omaha,  etc.,  Smelting,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Taber,  13  Colo.  41,  21  Pac.  925,  16  Am.  St. 
Eep.  185,  5  L.  R.  A.  236;  Walker  v.  Sarven, 
41  Fla.  210,  25  So.  885;  Phipps  V.  Phipps, 
47Kan.  328,  27Pac.  972;  Hamilton  v.  Conine, 
28  Md.  635,  92  Am.  Dec.  724;  Moreland  v. 
Strong,  115  Mich.  211,  73  N.  W.  140,  69 
Am.  St.  Rep.  5S3;  Fritz  v.  Ramspott,  76 
Minn.  489,  79  N.  W.  520;  Flynn  v.  Herye,  4 
Mo.  App.  360;  Stoddard  t.  Weston,  3  Silv. 
Sup.  (N.  y.)  13,  6  N.  Y.  Suppl.  34;  Coles  v. 
Coles,  15  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  159,  8  Am.  Dec. 
231;  Thompson's  Appeal,  101  Pa.  St.  225; 
Harlan  v.  Central  Phosphate  Co.,  (Tenn.  Ch. 
App.)  62  S.  W.  614;  Cotton  v.  Rand,  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.  1898)  51  S.  W.  55;  Chandler  K. 
Ricker,  49  Vt.  128;  Clymer  v.  Dawkins,  3 
How.  (U.  S.)  674,  11  L.  ed.  778;  Allen  v. 
Anthony,  1  Meriv.  282,  15  Rev.  Rep.  113,  35 
Eng.  Reprint  679;  McDearmid  v.  MoDearmid, 
15  Can.  L.  J.  N.  S.  112.  And  the  subsequent 
grantees  of  said  grantor  cannot  be  heard  to 
complain  thereof.  Stark  i;.  Barrett,  15  Cal. 
361;  Howard  f.  Bates,  8  Mete.  (Mass.)  484. 
But  if  the  purchaser  buys  from  a  tenant  in 
common  in  possession  who  is  accountable  to 
his  cotenants  for  the  income  of  the  common 
property,  the  purchaser  must  account  for  the 
income  of  so  much  thereof  as  was  productive 
at  the  time  of  the  purchase  and  taking  pos- 
session, regardless  of  the  fact  that  it  had 
been  rendered  productive  by  his  grantee.  Han- 
cock V.  Day,  McMuU.  Eq.  (S.  C.)  298.  The 
right  of  the  grantee  is  sulKciently  protected 
by  subrogating  him  to  the  rights  of  the 
grantor  on  partition  as  to  the  interest  con- 
veyed. Hunter  v.  Hodgson,  (Tex.  Civ.  App. 
1906)  95  S.  W.  637.  The  recording  of  a 
mortgage  of  such  an  interest  does  not  amount 
to  constructive  notice  of  a  claim  to  exclusive 
ownership.  Davidson  v.  Coon,  125  Ind.  497, 
25  N.  j;.  601,  9  L.  R.  A.  584. 

Recording  conveyance. —  In  the  absence  of 
statute  to  the  contrary  there  is  no  necessity 
for  recording  conveyances  of  the  common  es- 
tate as  between  tenants  in  common.  Great 
Falls  Co.  !/.  Worster,  15  N.  H.  412. 

Form  of  conveyance. —  A  conveyance  by  a 
tenant  in  common  to  a  stranger  must  be  of 
the  same  character  as  though  an  estate  in 
severalty  were  thereby  intended  to  be  con- 
veyed; if  the  intention  be  to  convey  a  fee, 
then  words  of  inheritance  or  perpetuity  must 
be  used,  unless  otherwise  provided  by  stat- 
ute. Rector  f.  Waugh,  17  Mo.  13,  57  Am. 
Dec.  251.     See  also  Freeman  Coten.  §  193. 

Conveyance  by  one  out  of  possession.^  If 
a  law  be  in  force  forbidding  or  avoiding  con- 
veyances made  by  one  out  of  possession,  it  is 
equally  applicable  to  cot?najits  99  to  others; 

[S] 


but  tenants  in  common  are  favored  by  the 
presumption  that  possession  of  one  is  pos- 
session of  all.  Freeman  Coten.  §  192  [citing 
Bird  V.  Bird,  40  Me.  398 ;  Constantine  v.  Van 
Winkle,  6  Hill  (N.  Y.)   177]. 

Purchase  by  cotenant. —  The  purchase  by 
one  tenant  in  common  of  land,  of  the  interest 
of  one  of  his  cotenants  therein,  with  knowl- 
edge that  said  interest  has  already  been  sold 
by  a  parol  sale  to  another  of  his  cotenants 
therein,  disentitles  the  said  vendee  with  no- 
tice from  any  interest  in  such  purchased 
property,  at  least  until  after  he  shall  have 
placed  the  first  vendee  thereof  in  statu  quo. 
Haines  v.  McGlone,  44  Ark.  79. 

What  passes  by  deed. —  An  equitable  claim 
for  improvements  upon  the  land  will  not  pass 
by  a  deed  of  all  the  grantors'  "  right,  title, 
and  interest "  in  and  to  the  land.  Curtis  v. 
Poland,  66  Tex.  511,  2  S.  W.  39.  Nor  will  a 
cotenant's  right  of  subrogation  because  of 
his  payment  of  more  than  his  share  of  a  lien 
on  the  entire  property  thus  pass.  Oliver  v. 
Lansing,  57  Nebr.  352,  77  N.  W.  802.  Where 
an  attorney  in  fact  conveyed  a  certain  tract 
of  land  and  subsequently  an  undivided  one- 
half  interest  therein  was  conveyed  to  him 
personally,  and  not  as  attorney,  a  subsequent 
conveyance  by  him  of  a  portion  thereof,  as 
attorney  for  one  of  his  cobwners,  merely 
passed  the  interest  of  his  principal,  and  did 
not  affect  his  own.  Eason  v.  Weeks,  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.  1907)   104  S.  W.  1070. 

A  foreclosure  of  a  chattel  mortgage  of  an 
undivided  interest  in  personal  property  held 
by  cotenants,  acquiesced  in  by  the  mortgagor, 
cannot  be  attacked  by  one  holding  an  interest 
in  the  property  as  cotenant.  Julian  v.  Yeo- 
man, 25  Okla.  448,  106  Pac.  956,  27  L.  R.  A. 
N.  S.  618. 

38.  Horgan  v.  Bickerton,  17  R.  I.  483,  23 
Atl.  23,  24  Atl.  772. 

39.  Shepherd  v.  Jernigan,  51  Ark.  275,  10 
S.  W.  765,  14  Am.  St.  Rep.  50;  Green  v. 
Arnold,  11  R.  I.  364,  23  Am.  Rep.  466; 
Crocker  v.  Tiffany,  9  R.  I.  505;  Peterson  v. 
Fowler,  73  Tex.  524,  11  S.  W.  534. 

The  sale  does  not  operate  as  a  partition 
of  the  common  property.  Broom  v.  Pearson, 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.  1904)   81  S.  W.  753. 

40.  ArkoMsas.—  CArle  v.  Wall,  (1891)  16 
S.  W.  293;  Titsworth  v.  Frauenthal,  52  Ark. 
254,  12  S.  W.  498. 

Maine. —  McArthur  f.  Lane,  15  Me.  245. 

Missouri. —  Sharp  v.  Benoist,  7  Mo.  App. 
534. 

New  York. —  Hudson  v.  Swan,  83  N.  Y. 
552. 

Oregon. —  Phipps  v.  Taylor,  15  Oreg.  484, 
16  Pac.  171. 

Texas. —  Worsham  v.  Vignal,  5  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  471,  24  S.  W.  562. 

Vermont. —  Sanborn  v.  Morrill,  15  Vt.  700, 
40  Am.  Dec.  701. 

Washington. —  Vermont  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Car- 
din,  19  Wash.  304,  53  Pac.  164. 

[IV,  B,  2] 


114     [38  Cyc] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


by  subsequent  dealings  between  themselves,  in  any  way  affect  the  interests  of 
the  other  cotenants  therein,  without  notice  to  them,^'  and  it  has  been  held  that 
one  tenant  in  common  cannot  so  dispose  of  his  interest  in  the  soil  to  one  per- 
son and  his  interest  in  the  minerals  to  another  person  as  to  prejudice  the  rights 
of  his  cotenants  therein.^^  As  the  purchaser  from  a  cotenant  merely  takes  such 
cotenant's  interest,  he  takes  subject  to  the  equities  of  the  other  cotenants,*' 
although  the  rule  is  held  to  be  otherwise  in  the  absence  of  notice.** 

3.  Conveyance  by  Metes  and  Bounds.  One  tenant  in  common  cannot,  as 
against  and  to  the  prejudice  of  his  cotenants  or  those  claiming  under  them,  devise 
or  convey  a  part  of  the  common  property  in  severalty  by  metes  and  bounds  so 
as  to  convey  any  undivided  interest  in  the  whole  estate,  nor  can  such  devise  or 
conveyance  be  held  good  as  to  his  cotenants  for  any  portion  of  the  land  embraced 
therein,  without  a  partition;  he  can  only  devise  or  convey,  or  except  from  devise 
or  conveyance,  an  undivided  share  of  his  whole  interest  constituting  an  aliquot 
part  of  the  whole  estate;  ^  nor  can  he  put  the  purchaser  thereof  in  exclusive 


41.  Porter  v.  Stone,  70  Miss.  291,  12  So. 
208;  Roll  V.  Everett,  72  N.  J.  Eq.  20,  65  Atl. 
732. 

43.  Adain  v.  Briggs  Iron  Co.,  7  Cush. 
(Mass.)  361;  Boston  Franklinite  Co.  v.  Con- 
dit,  19  N.  J.  Eq.  394. 

43.  Arkansas. — ■  Bowman  v.  Pettit,  68  Ark. 
126,  56  S.  W.  780. 

Georgia. —  Turnbull  v.  Foster,  116  Ga.  7«5, 
43  S.  E.  42. 

Massachusetts. —  Marks  V.  Sewall,  120 
Mass.  174;  Torrey  i;.  Cook,  116  Mass.  163; 
Weld  V.  Oliver,  21  Pick.  559. 

Michigan. —  Moreland  v.  Strong,  115  Mich. 
211,  73  N.  W.  140,  69  Am.  St.  Eep.  553. 

Missouri. —  Beck  v.  Kallmeyer,  42  Mo.  App. 
563. 

New  York. —  Matter  of  Lucy,  4  Misc.  349, 
24  N.  Y.  Suppl.  352. 

Texas. —  Cotton  v.  Band,  (Civ.  App.  189,3) 
51  S.  W.  55. 

Utah. —  Manti  City  Sav.  Bank  v.  Peterson, 
33  Utah  209,  93  Pac.  566,  126  Am.  St.  Rep. 
817. 

A  grantee  of  a  coparcener  takes  only  an  in- 
choate title  to  a  lot  afterward  assigned  in 
partition.    Flynn  v.  Herye,  4  Mo.  App.  360. 

If  prior  to  his  taking  he  has  a  lien  created 
by  contract,  such  lien  continues.  Hudson  v. 
Swan,  7  Abb.  N.  Cas.  (N.  Y.)  324  [reversed 
on  other  grounds  in  83  N.  Y.  552]. 

44.  Nalle  v.  Thompson,  173  Mo.  595,  73 
S.  W.  599  (holding  that  the  assignee  of  a 
cotenant  who  purchased  the  common  property 
at  a  judicial  sale  for  his  own  interest  only 
cannot  be  affected  by  proceedings  between  his 
grantor  and  his  grantor's  cotenant  for  the  en- 
forcement of  such  cotenant's  rights  as  against 
such  grantor,  and  especially  not  if  such 
grantee  had  no  notice  of  the  equity  of  his 
grantor's  cotenant  at  the  time  of  the  grant)  ; 
Atkinson  v.  Hewett,  63  Wis.  396,  23  N.  W. 
889). 

45.  California. —  Gates  v.  Salmon,  35  Cal. 
576,  95  Am.  Dec.  139. 

Connecticut. —  Hartford,  etc.,  Ore  Co.  v. 
Miller,  41  Conn.  112;  Marshall  v.  Trumbull, 
28  Conn.  183,  73  Am.  Dec.  667;  Griswold  v. 
Johnson,  5  Conn.  363. 

Indiana. —  Warthen  v.  Siefert,  139  Ind.  233, 
38  N.  E.  464. 

[IV,  B,  2] 


Maine. —  Duncan  v.  Sylvester,  24  Me.  482, 
41  Am.  Dec.  400. 

Maryland. —  Carroll  v.  Norwood,  1  Harr. 
&  J.  100. 

Massachusetts. — Peabody  v.  Minot,  24  Pick. 
329;  Blossom  v.  Brightman,  21  Pick.  2»5; 
Varnum  v.  Abbot,  12  Mass.  474,  7  Am.  Dec. 
»7;  Porter  v.  Hill,  9  Mass.  34,  6  Am.  Dec. 
22. 

Missouri. —  Barnhart  v.  Campbell,  50  Mo. 
697 ;  McCaul  v.  Kilpatrick,  46  Mo.  434. 

New  Hampshire. —  Whitton  v.  Whitton,  38 
N.  H.  127,  75  Am.  Dec.  163;  Great  Falls  Co. 
V.  Worster,  15  N.  H.  412  (holding  that  such 
a  conveyance  will  not  prevent  a  third  person 
from  purchasing  the  share  of  the  other  co- 
tenant,  in  the  same  manner  as  if  the  convey- 
ance had  never  been  made)  ;  Jeffers  v.  Rad- 
cliff,  10  N.  H.  242. 

New  York. —  Hunt  v.  Crowell,  2  Edm.  Sel. 
Cas.  385. 

Ohio. —  Dennison  v.  Foster,  9  Ohio  126,  34 
Am.  Dec.  429. 

Texas. —  Dorn  f.  Dunham,  24  Tex.  366. 
See  45   Cent.  Dig.  tit.   "Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  135  et  seq. 

An  attempt  by  a  cotenant  to  parcel  out 
mineral  rights  in  their  nature  indivisible  is 
voidable  as  to  the  other  cotenants  at  their 
election.  Adam  v.  Briggs  Iron  Co.,  7  Cush. 
(Mass.)  361;  Boston  Franklinite  Co.  v.  Con- 
dit,  19  N.  J.  Eq.  394. 

The  question  as  to  the  effect  of  a  convey- 
ance by  metes  and  bounds  usually  arises 
where  there  is  conflict  for  the  exclusive  pos- 
session of  the  property  or  a  part  thereof 
between  the  grantor's  cotenants,  and  the 
grantee  by  metes  and  bounds.  Such  convey- 
ance may  be  avoided  in  so  far  as  it  inter- 
feres with  the  non-conveying  cotenant's 
rights.  Soutter  v.  Porter,  27  Me.  405 ;  Phil- 
lips V.  Tudor,  10  Gray  (Mass.)  78,  69  Am. 
Dec.  306 ;  Peabody  v.  Minot,  24  Pick.  (Mass.) 
329 ;  Bartlet  v.  Harlow,  12  Mass.  348,  7  Am. 
Dec.  76 ;  Great  Falls  Co.  v.  Worster,  15  N.  H. 
412. 

The  leasing  of  a  whole  field  owned  in  com- 
mon by  one  of  the  tenants  in  common  therein 
cannot  deprive  his  cotenants  of  the  right  to 
^^f,  \^^  common  property,  and  no  trespass 
will  he  for  the  lawful  exercise  of  the  non- 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[88  Cyc.J     115 


possession  of  the  portion  conveyed,"-  and  such  grantee  takes  subject  to  the  rights 
of  the  remaining  cotenants.*'  A  conveyance  by  metes  and  bounds  to  a  stranger 
without  the  knowledge  and  consent  of  the  grantor's  cotenants  does  not  make 
such  stranger  a  cotenant  so  as  to  give  him  the  absolute  right  to  have  the  portion 
of  the  entire  tract  assigned  to  him.*'  But  such  a  devise  or  conveyance  is  valid 
between  the  devisor  or  grantor,  and  the  devisees  or  grantees,  and  those  claiming 
by  or  under  them  respectively,  although  inoperative  as  to  the  rights  of  the 
devisor's  or  grantor's  cotenants  and  those  claiming  by  or  under  them,*"  who 
alone  can  avoid  it,^"  and  that  only  if  it  prejudices  them,^'  the  effect  of  the  con- 
veyance by  the  tenant  in  common  of  his  share  by  metes  and  bounds  being  to  pass 
the  devisor's  or  grantor's  proportional  interest  in  the  part  described  by  the  deed;  " 


leasing  cotenant's  rights  in  the  premises. 
Harman  v.  Gartman,  Harp.  (S.  C.)  430,  18 
Am.  Dec.  659. 

The  court  will  not  presume  an  allotment 
of  land  to  the  vendee,  within  specific  metes 
and  bounds,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  of  a 
partition.  There  is  no  presumption  of  par- 
tition from  the  mere  fact  of  the  sale  by  metes 
and  bounds  of  a  portion  of  the  common  prop- 
erty. Holt  V.  Robertson,  McMull.  Eq.  (S..C.) 
475. 

Specific  amount  of  timber. —  A  cotenant's 
deed,  attempting  to  convey  all  the  sawed 
timber  standing  on  a  described  portion  of  the 
property,  was  inoperative  as  against  his  co- 
tenant;  he  being  unauthorized  to  convey  by 
his  sole  deed  an  interest  in  a  part  of  the  com- 
mon property.  Lee  v.  Follensby,  83  Vt.  35,  74 
Atl.  327. 

46.  Connecticut. —  Hinman  K.  Leavenworth, 
2  Conn.  244  note. 

Indiana. —  Mattox  v.  Hightshue,  39  Ind.  95. 

Maine. — Staniford  v.  Fullerton,  18  Me.  229. 

Texas. —  Good  v.  Coombs,  28  Tex.  34 ;  Dorn 
V.  Dunham,  24  Tex.  366;  Stuart  v.  Baker,  17 
Tex.  417. 

Wisconsin. —  Shepardson  v.  Rowland,  28 
Wis.  108. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  135  et  seq. 

47.  Mora  v.  Murphy,  83  Cal.  12,  23'  Pac. 
63;  Stark  v.  Barrett,  15  Cal.  361. 

Equity  will  protect  a  devisee  or  grantee 
by  metes  and  bounds  if  it  can  do  so  without 
prejudice  to  cotenants  of  the  devisor  or  of 
the  grantor;  and  it  has  been  held  that  where 
the  common  property  is  of  uniform  value 
and  a  portion  thereof  has  been  conveyed  by 
metes  and  bounds  by  warranty  deed,  equity 
would  require  that  the  land  to  which  another 
cotenant  was  entitled  should  be  set  off  out 
of  the  portion  of  the  tract  not  thus  conveyed. 
Beale  v.  Johnson,  45  Tex.  Civ.  App.  119,  99 
S.  W.  1045;  Furrh  v.  Winston,  66  Tex.  521, 
1  S.  W.  527;  Wells  v.  Heddenberg,  11  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  3,  30  S.  W.  702;  McNeil  v.  Me- 
Dougall,  28  Nova  Scotia  296. 

Such  as  the  right  of  partition  of  the  whole 
lot.     Stark  v.  Barrett,  15  Cal.  361. 

48.  Boggess  v.  Meredith,  16  W.  Va.  1. 
The  conveyance  operates  as  an  estoppel  as 

to  the  conveying  cotenant  and  his  privies. 
Varnum  v.  Abbott,  12  Mass.  474,  7  Am.  Dec. 
87;  MoKey  v.  Welch   22  Tex.  390. 

49.  California. —  Stark  c.  Barrett,  15  Cal. 
361. 


Kentucky. — Young  v.  Adams,  14  B.  Mon. 
127,  58  Am.  Dec.  654. 

Maine. —  Duncan  v.  Sylvester,  24  Me.  482, 
41  Am.  Deo.  400. 

New  Hampshire. — Whitton  v.  Whitton,  38 
N.  H.  127,  75  Am.  Dec.  163. 

Texas. —  March  v.  Huyter,  50  Tex.  243; 
McKey  v.  Welch,  22  Tex.  390;  McAUen  v. 
Raphael,  11  Tex.  Civ.  App.  116,  32  S.  W. 
449.  See  also  Wade  v.  Boyd,  24  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  492,  60  S.  W.  360. 

Virginia. —  Cox  v.  McMuUin,  14  Gratt.  82. 

United  States. —  Lamb  v.  Wakefield,  14 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,024,  1  Sawy.  251. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  135  et  seq. 

Action  for  non-delivery. —  The  owner  of  an 
undivided  interest  in  land  selling  the  whole 
thereof  or  a  part  thereof  by  metes  and  bounds, 
without  authority,  is  liable  in  damages  to 
the  vendee  for  a  failure  to  deliver  it.  Nevins 
v.  Thomas,  80  Tex.  596,  16  S.  W.  332. 

50.  Connecticut. —  Goodwin  v.  Keney,  49 
Conn.  563. 

Massachusetts. —  Benjamin  v.  American 
Tel.,  etc.,  Co.,  196  Mass.  454,  82  N.  E.  681; 
Frost  V.  Courtis,  172  Mass.  401,  52  N.  E.  515; 
Dall  V.  Brown,  5  Cush.  289 ;  Nichols  v.  Smith, 
22  Pick.  316. 

New  Hampshire. —  Great  Falls  Co.  v. 
Worster,  15  N.  H.  412. 

Tearas.^  Talkin  v.  Anderson,  (1892)  19 
S.  W.  350 ;  Camoron  v.  Thurmond,  56  Tex.  22. 

Virginia. — Woods  V.  Early,  95  Va.  307,  28 
S.  E.  374. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  135  et  seq. 

51.  Kenoye  v.  Brown,  82  Miss.  607,  35  So. 
163,  100  Am.  St.  Rep.  645;  Barnhart  v. 
Campbell,  50  Mo.  597;  Holcomb  v.  Coryell, 
11  N.  J.  Eq.  548. 

A  release  to  such  vendee  confirms  the 
previous  conveyance.  Johnson  v.  Stevens,  7 
Cush.  (Mass.)  431. 

Necessity  of  notice  of  election  to  avoid. — 
There  is  no  necessity  on  the  part  of  non-con- 
senting cotenants  to  notify  grantee  that  they 
elect  to  avoid  such  conveyance.  Duncan  v. 
Sylvester,  24  Me.  482,  41  Am.  Dec.  400. 

52.  California. —  Mahoney  v.  Middleton,  41 
Cal.  41;  Stark  i;.  Barrett,  15  Cal.  361. 

Maryland. —  Reinicker  v.  Smith,  2  Harr. 
&  J.  421. 

Mississippi. —  Kenoye  v.  Brown,  82  Miss. 
607,  35  So.  163,  100,  Am.  St.  Rep.  645. 

Missouri. —  Primm  v.  Walker,  38  Mo.  94. 

[IV,  B,  3] 


116     [38  Cye.] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


and  to  entitle  the  grantee  and  those  claiming  under  him  to  the  rights  of  the 
grantor  in  the  portion  thus  conveyed.^' 

C.  Actions  and  Proceedings  —  1.  In  General;  Amount  of  Recovery. 
As  to  the  recovery  by  a  tenant  in  common  suing  for  possession  of  land  against 
a  stranger,  the  authorities  are  in  conflict.^*  It  is  held  in  many  cases  that  one  tenant 
in  common  may  recover  in  ejectment  or  trespass  the  entire  common  property 
as  against  a  stranger.^^    On  the  other  hand,  there  are  cases  that  restrict  recovery 


A'eif  YorZc— Edwards  v.  Bishop,  4  N.  Y.  61. 
Compare  Hunt  v.  Crowell,  2  Edm.  Sel.  Cas. 
385. 

Ohio. —  Dennison  f.  Foster,  9  Ohio  126,  34 
Am.  Dec.  429.  Compare  White  v.  Sayre,  2 
Oliio  110,  dissenting  opinion. 

Philippine. —  Lopez  v.  Ilustre,  5  Philip- 
pine 567. 

Tennessee.—  Jewett  v.  Stocliton,  3  Yerg. 
492,  24  Am.  Dee.  594. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  135. 

Compare  Steele  v.  Steele,  220  111.  318,  77 
N.  E.  232;  Young  V.  Edwards,  33  S.  C.  404, 
11  S.  E.  1066,  26  Am.  St.  Eep.  689,  10 
L.  E.  A.  55. 

53.  March  v.  Huyter,  50  Tex.  243 ;  McAUen 
V.  Raphael,  11  Tex.  Civ.  App.  116,  32  S.  W. 
449.     See  also  Starnes  v.  Quin,  6  Ga.  84. 

Upon  a  subsequent  partition  the  grantee 
is  estopped  from  claiming  interest  in  any 
parcel  of  the  common  property  except  in 
that  parcel  specifically  conveyed,  and  he  can- 
not take  any  portion  of  said  parcel  not 
■witliin  the  metes  and  bounds  described. 
Kenoye  v.  Brown,  82  Miss.  607,  35  So.  163, 
100  Am.  St;  Rep.  645.  See  also  Hunt  v. 
Crowell,  2  Edm.  Sel.  Cas.  (N.  Y.)  385; 
Young  V.  Edwards,  33  S.  C.  404,  11  S.  E. 
1066,  26  Am.  St.  Rep.  689,  10  L.  R.  A.  55. 

54.  See  Williams  v.  Coal  Creek  Min.,  etc., 
Co.,  115  Tenn.  578,  93  S.  W.  572,  112  Am. 
St.  Rep.  878,  6  L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  710.  And  see 
cases  cited  infra,  the  following  notes. 

5.5.  California. —  Chipman  v.  Hastings,  50 
Cal.  310,  19  Am.  Rep.  655;  Williams  v. 
Sutton,  43  Cal.  65;  Treat  r.  Eeilly,  35  Cal. 
129;  Rowe  v.  Bacigalluppi,  21  Cal.  633;  Ma- 
honey  V.  Van  Winkle,  21  Cal.  552;  Hart  v. 
Robertson,  21  Cal.  346;  Touchard  v.  Crow,  20 
Cal.  150,  81  Am.  Dec.  108;  Stark  v.  Barrett, 
15  Cal.  361.  But  see  Throckmorton  v.  Burr, 
5  Cal.  400. 

CoJorodo.— Field  v.  Tanner,  32  Colo.  278, 
75  Pac.  916;  Weese  v.  Barker,  7  Colo.  178, 
2  Pac.  919. 

Connecticut. —  Smith  v.  Starkweather,  5 
Day  207 ;  Bush  i:  Bradley,  4  Day  298. 

Hawaii. —  Godfrey  v.  Rowland,  17  Hawaii 
577. 

Kansas. —  Horner  v.  Ellis,  75  Kan.  675,  90 
Pac.  275,  121  Am.  St.  Rep.  446,  so  held  in  an 
action  against  a  defendant  holding  the  com- 
mon property  by  a  voidable  tax  deed  upon 
payment  of  the  lien  for  taxes. 

Michigan. —  Lamb  v.  Lamb,  139  Mich.  166, 
102  N.  W.  645,  under  statute. 

Minnesota. —  Sherin  v.  Larson,  28  Minn. 
523,  11  N.  W.  70. 

Montana. —  Hopkins  v,  Noyes,  4  Mont.  550, 
2  Pac.  280,  so  holding,  even  though  the  title 

[IV,  B,  3] 


of  the  cotenants  not  joining  as  plaintiffs  be 
defective. 

Nevada. —  Brown  v.  Warren,  16  Nev.  228 ; 
Sharon  v.  Davidson,  4  Nev.  416. 

NeiD  Mexico. — De  Bergere  v.  Chaves,  (1908) 
93  Pae.  762. 

North  Carolina. —  Winbore  v.  Elizabeth 
City  Lumber  Co.,  130  N.  C.  32,  40  S.  E.  825. 
See  Morehead  v.  Hall,  126  N.  C.  213,  35  S.  E. 
428  (holding  that  failure  to  show  the  owner- 
ship of  a  moiety  of  the  common  property  not 
owned  by  either  of  the  parties  will  not  dis- 
entitle plaintiff  from  the  recovery  of  his  own 
interest  as  against  a  stranger  to  the  title)  ; 
Gilchrist  v.  Middleton,  107  N.  C.  663,  12 
S.  E.  85;  Thames  v.  Jones,  97  N.  C.  121,  1 
S.  E.  692;  Lafoon  v.  Shearin,  95  N.  C.  391; 
Yancey  v.  Greenlee,  90  N.   C.  317. 

North  Dakota. —  Griswold  v.  Minneapolis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  N.  D.  435,  97  N.  W.  538,  102 
Am.   St.  Eep.  572. 

South  Dakota. —  Mather  v.  Dunn,  11  S.  D. 
196,  76  N.  W.  922,  74  Am.  St.  Rep.  788. 

Temas. — ^Waggoner  v.  Snody,  98  Tex.  512, 
85  S.  W.  1134  [reversing  36  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
514,  82  S.  W.  355];  Gray  v.  Kauffman,  82 
Tex.  65,  17  S.  W.  513;  Wright  v.  Dunn,  73 
Tex.  293,  11  S.  W.  330;  Johnson  t\  Schu- 
macher, 72  Tex.  334,  12  S.  W.  207;  Ney  r. 
Mumme,  66  Tex.  268,  17  S.  W.  407;  Moore 
V.  Stewart,  (1887)  7  S.  W.  771;  Contreras 
t\  Haynes,  61  Tex.  103;  Pilcher  v.  Kirk,  60 
Tex.  162;  Sowers  v.  Peterson,  59  Tex.  216; 
Hintze  v.  Krabbenschmidt,  (Civ.  App.  1897) 
44  S.  W.  38;  Marlin  v.  Kosmyroski,  (Civ. 
AppT  1894)  27  S.  W.  1042;  Bennett  f.  Vir- 
ginia Ranch,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  321, 
21  S.  W.  126.  But  see  Boone  v.  Knox,  80 
Tex.  642,  16  8.  W.  448,  26  Am.  St.  Rep.  767, 
holding  that  where  defendant  is  not  a  mere 
trespasser  a  tenant  in  common  is  not  enti- 
tled to  recover  against  such  defendant  for 
other  tenants  in  common  not  parties. 

Vermont. —  Bigelow  v.  Rising,  42  Vt.  678 ; 
Robinson  v.  Sherwin,  36  Vt.  69;  Hibbard  v. 
Foster,  24  Vt.  542;  Johnson  v.  Tilden,  5  Vt. 
426. 

West  Virginia. — ^Voss  v.  King,  33  W.  Va. 
236,    10    S.    E.    402. 

United  States. — ^Hardy  v.  Johnson,  1  Wall. 
371,  17  L.  ed.  502;  French  v.  Edwards,  9 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,098,  5  Sawy.  266,  7  Reporter 
68;  Le  Franc  v.  Richmond,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
8,209.,   5    Sawy.   601. 

Canada. —  Scott  v.  McNutt,  2  Nova  Scotia 
Dec.  118. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §   147. 

But  if  by  agreement  between  tenants  in 
common  one  is  permitted  to  have  the  exclu- 
sive use  and  possession  of  a  part  of  the  land 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc]    117 


to  the  interests  of  plaintiff  only  and  do  not  permit  recovery  by  them  for  them- 
selves and  their  cotenants  who  are  not  made  parties  plaintiff  to  the  suit.^°  Thus 
it  is  held  that  the  recovery  of  a  tenant  in  common,  who,  with  his  cotenant,  has 
been  disseized  by  a  stranger,  is  limited  to  the  interest  of  such  tenant  in  common, 
and  after  recovery  he  holds  in  common  with  the  disseizor.^'  Even  if  the  recovery 
of  the  whole  be  permitted  it  must  be  in  subordination  to  the  rights  of  possession 
of  cotenants,^'  provided,  however,  that  before  the  cotenants  can  successfully 
claim  the  right  of  possession  they  must  pay  or  tender  to  their  successful  fellow 
their  due  proportion  of  the  expenses  properly  incurred  for  the  recovery  of  the 
possession  for  their  common  benefit.^"  The  same  rule  applies  in  the  case  of  a 
judgment  in  an  action  of  ejectment  in  a  suit  between  cotenants  or  coparceners. ^^ 
In  actions  for  damages  for  injury  to  property  or  detention  thereof,  a  tenant  in 
common  is  entitled  to  recover  only  his  share  of  the  damages  to  the  whole  prop- 
erty,*"^ and  in  a  suit  for  land  plaintiff  may  only  recover  his  proportionate  part  of 
the  rents. *^  It  has  been  held  that  a  recovery  of  a  tenant  in  common  suing  for 
a  conversion  of  a  chattel  is  limited  to  his  share  or  interest  therein."' 


which  they  own  together,  while  the  other 
has  such  use  and  possession  of  other  lands 
so  owned,  then  either  may  recover  for  any 
injury  done  to  that  which  he  has  right  ex- 
clusively to  use  or  possess.  Gulf,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Wheat,  68  Tex.  133,  3  S.  W.  455. 

56.  Alabama. —  Stodder  v.  Powell,  1  Stew. 
287. 

Georgia-. —  Sanford  v.  Sanford,  58  Ga.  259, 
code  provision. 

Kentucky. —  Russell  t\  Mark,  3  Mete.  37; 
Daniel  v.  Bratton,  1  Dana  209;  Frazier  v. 
Spear,  2  Bibb  385.  But  see  King  v.  Bullock, 
9  Dana  41. 

Massachusetts. —  Butrick  v.  Tilton,  14i 
Mass.  93,  6  N.  E.  663. 

Missouri. —  Baber  v.  Henderson,  156  Mo. 
566,  57  S.  W.  719,  79  Am.  St.  Rep.  540.  See 
also  State  v.  Staed,  64  Mo.  App.  453. 

New  York. — Hasbrouck  v.  Bunce,  3  Thomps. 
&  C.  309  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  62 
N.  Y.  475].  But  see  Sparks  v.  Leavy,  1 
Rob.   530,   19   Abb.   Pr.    364. 

Pennsylvania.- — -Mobley  v.  Bruner,  59  Pa. 
St.  481,  98  Am.  Dec.  360;  Dawson  v.  Mills, 
32  Pa.  St.  302 ;  Agnew  v.  Johnson,  17  Pa.  St. 
373,  55  Am.   Dec.  565. 

South  Carolina. —  Bannister  v.  Bull,  16 
S.  C.  220  (a  case  where  the  owners  of  one 
third  of  the  common  property  refused  to  join 
as  plaintiffs  and  were  joined  as  defendants)  ; 
Watson  V.  Hill,  1  McCord  161;  Perry  v.  Mid- 
dleton,  2  Bay  462;  Perry  t\  Walker,  2  Bay 
461;  McFadden  v.  Haley,  2  Bay  457,  1  Am. 
Dec.  653. 

Tennessee. — Williams  v.  Coal  Creek  Min., 
etc.,  Co.,  115  Tenn.  578,  93  S.  W.  572,  112 
Am.  St.  Rep.  878,  6  L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  710; 
Hughes  v.  Woodard,  (Ch.  App.  1900)  63 
S.  W.  191. 

Virginia. — ^Marshall  v.  Palmer,  91  Va.  344, 
21  S.  E.  672,  50  Am.  St.  Rep.  838.  But  see 
Allen  v.  Gibson,  4  Rand.  468. 

United  States. — Whittle  v.  Artis,  55  Fed. 
919;  Stevens  v.  Ruggles,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,408,  5  Mason  221. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  154. 

Where  a  tenant  in  common  recovers  in 
ejectment    against    disseizors,    he    can    only 


hold  for  himself  and  not  for  the  benefit  of  his 
cotenants.  Gilman  v.  Stetson,  18  Me.  428; 
Where  a  compromise  verdict  is  rendered 
in  favor  of  one  cotenant,  amounting  to  leas 
than  he  claims  as  his  share,  he  does  not  take 
the  land  in  trust  for  the  benefit  of  the 
vendees  at  a  sheriffs  sale  of  the  share  of  a 
bankrupt  co-plaintiff  claiming  cotenancy  who 
took  no  interest  in  the  proceedings.  Mayes 
t\  Rust,  42  Tex.  Civ.  App.  423,  94  S.  W.  110. 

57.  Baber  v.  Henderson,  156  Mo.  566,  57 
S.  W.   719,  79  Am.  St.  Rep.  540. 

58.  California. —  Stark  v.  Barrett,  15  Cal. 
361. 

New  Mexico. —  De  Bergere  v.  Chaves,  93 
Pac.  762. 

Texas. —  Keith  v.  Keith,  39  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
363,  87  S.  W.  384;  Marlin  v.  Kosmyroski, 
(Civ.  App.   1894)    27  S.  W.   1042. 

United  States. —  Hardy  v.  Johnson,  1  Wall. 
371,  17  L.  ed.  502. 

Canada. —  Scott  v.  McNutt,  2  Nova  Scotia 
Dec.  118. 

59.  Gregg  v.  Patterson,  9  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.) 
197. 

60.  Robertson  v.  Robertson,  2  B.  Mon. 
(Ky.)    235,   38  Am.  Dec.    148;   Jones  -v.   De 

Laasus,   84  Mo.  541. 

61.  Alabama. —  Birmingham  R.,  etc.,  Co.  V. 
Oden,  146  Ala.  495,  41  So.  129;  Lowery  v. 
Rowland,    104   Ala.   420,    16   So.   88. 

California. —  Muller  v.  Boggs,  25  Cal.  175; 
Clark   V.  Huber,  20  Cal.   196. 

Mississippi.— Haley  v.  Taylor,  77  Miss. 
867,  28  So.  752,  78  Am.  St.  Rep.  549. 

Missouri. —  Eastin  v.  Joyce,  85  Mo.  App. 
433. 

Texas. —  Naugher  v.  Patterson,  9  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  168,  28  S.  W.  582. 

Canada. —  Brittain  v.  Parker,  12  Nova 
Scotia  589. 

63.  Muller  v.  Boggs, -25  Cal.  175;  Logan 
V.  Robertson,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1904)  83  S.  W. 
395 

63.  Fielder  v.  Childs,  73  Ala.  567 ;  Rolette 
V.  Parker,  1  111.  350;  Bush  v.  Gamble,  127 
Pa.  St.  43,  17  Atl.  865;  Brittain  v.  Parker, 
12  Nova  Scotia  589. 

Statute  allowing  punitive  damages  see 
Richardson  v.  Richardson,  64  Me.  62. 

[IV,  C,  1] 


118     [38  Cye.J 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


2.  Parties  —  a.  Joinder  of  Plaintltfs  —  (i)  Actions  in  Which  Cotenants 
Need  Not  Join.  A  tenant  in  common  may  maintain  an  action  without  the 
joinder  of  his  cotenants  where  such  action  is  for  the  protection  of  his  several 
interest,"^  and  where  his  cotenant  is  wrongfully  maintaining  an  adverse  position 
or  is  not  interested  in  the  recovery/^  and  where  a  statute  provides  that  tenants 
in  common,  or  any  number  less  than  all,  may  jointly  or  severally  commence  any 
action,  it  is  not  necessary  to  make  such  tenants  in  common  parties  plaintiff  on 
whose  behalf  no  recovery  is  or  should  be  sought.*'  Even  where  the  rule  is  that 
an  action  should  be  jointly  brought  by  the  cotenants,  the  tendency  of  the 
American  courts  has  been  to  permit  a  separate  action  in  the  absence  of  a  plea 


64.  Alahama. —  MeGhee  v.  Alexander,  104 
Ala.  116,  16  So.  148  (for  enforcement  of 
vendor's  lien  by  vendor  of  his  own  undivided 
interest) ;  Tankersley  v.  Cliilders,  23  Ala. 
781. 

California. —  Eoss  v.  Heintzen,  36  Cal.  313. 

Connecticut. —  Barnum  v.  Landon,  25  Conn. 
137;  Central  Mfg.  Co.  i:  Hartshorne,  3  Conn. 
199. 

Indiana. —  Bowser  v.  Cox,  3  Ind.  App.  309, 
29  N  E.  616,  50  Am.  St.  Eep.  274,  propor- 
tion of  rent. 

loiva. —  Arthur  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61 
Iowa  648,  17  N.  W.  24,  injury  to  property 
divisible  on   demand. 

Kentucky. —  Pope  v.  Brassfleld,  110  Ky. 
128,  61  S.  W.  5,  22  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1613.  See 
also  Gaines  v.  Buford,  1  Dana  481;  Doe  v. 
Botts,  4  Bibb  420 ;  Innis  v.  Crawford,  4  Bibb 
241. 

Maine. —  Longfellow  v.  Quimby,  29  Me. 
196,  48  Am.  Dec.  525,  trespass  quare  clausum. 

Minnesota.-^  Peck  !•.  McLean,  36  Minn. 
228,  30  N.  W.  759,  1  Am.  St.  Rep.  665. 

New  Hampshire. —  Blake  v.  Milliken,  14 
N.  H.  213;  Chesley  v.  Thompson,  3  N.  H.  9, 
14  Am.  Dec.   324. 

New  "i'orfc.— Stall  v.  Wilbur,  77  N.  Y.  158 
(refusal  to  deliver  property  divisible  on  de- 
mand, or  conversion  thereof)  ;  Jackson  i". 
Moore,  94  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  504,  87  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  1101;  Soule  v.  Mogg,  35  Hun  79  (sev- 
eral interest  in  check)  ;  Gilbert  v.  Dickerson, 
7  Wend.  449,  22  Am.  Dec.  592. 

Pennsylvania. —  De  Coursey  v.  Guarantee 
Trust,  etc.,  Co.,  81  Pa.  St.  217  (distraint  for 
several  share  of  rent)  ;  Cook  i\  Brightly,  46 
Pa.  St.  439  (several  portion  of  ground-rent); 
Agnew  V.  Johnson,  17  Pa.  St.  373,  55  Am. 
Dec.  565. 

Tennessee. —  Johnson  v.  Harris,  5  Hayw. 
113. 

Tewas. —  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wheat,  68 
Tex.  133,  3  S.  W.  455  (agreement  for  exclu- 
sive use  by  one  cotenant)  ;  Allday  f.  Whit- 
aker,  66  Tex.  669,  1  S.  W.  794;  Cotton  v. 
Coit,  (Civ.  App.  1895)  30  S.  W.  281  (for 
determination  of  plaintiff's  interest,  and  an 
accounting)  ;  Smith  v.  Powell,  5  Tex.  Civ. 
App.   373,  23  S.  W.   1109. 

l7<o;i.— Boley  v.  AUred,  25  Utah  402,  71 
Pac.  869. 

Washington. —  See  Vermont  L.  &  T.  Co.  v. 
Cardin,  19  Wash.  304,  53  Pac.  164. 

Wyoming. —  Gilland  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co., 
6  Wyo.  185,  43  Pac.  508. 

United   States. —  Hall  r.   Leigh,   8   Cranch 

[IV,  C,  2.  a,  (I)] 


50,  3  L.  ed.  484;  Jewett  v.  Cunard,  13  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  7,310,  3  Woodb.  &  M.  277. 

England.— Roberta  i\  Holland,  [1893]  1 
Q.  B.  665,  62  L.  J.  Q.  B.  621,  5  Reports  370, 
41  Wkly.  Rep.  494. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  143  et  seq. 

Trespass  to  try  title  to  respective  interest 
see  Hines  v.  Trantham,  27  Ala.  359;  John- 
son V.  Schumacher,  72  Tex.  334,  12  S.  W. 
207. 

Separate  demise  of  cotenant  see  Jackson 
V.  Sample,  1  Johns.  Cas.  (N.  Y.)  231;  Hay- 
den  V.  Patterson,  51  Pa.  St.  261. 

Any  one  or  more  of  several  heirs  at  law 
entitled  as  tenants  in  common  to  a  rever- 
sionary estate  in  land  may  sue  for  injuries 
thereto,  but  the  recovery  will  be  limited  to 
the  proportion  of  damages  those  suing  are 
entitled  to.  Lowery  v.  Rowland,  104  Ala. 
420,  16  So.  88;  Scott  v.  McNutt,  2  Nova 
Scotia  Dec.  118. 

65.  Alabama. —  Milner  v.  Milner,  101  Ala. 
599,   14  So.   373. 

Georgia. —  King  v.  Neel,  98  Ga.  438,  25 
S.  E.  513,  58  Am.  St.  Rep.  311;  Starnes  v. 
Quin,  6  Ga.   84. 

Iowa. —  Conover  v.  Earl,  26   Iowa  167. 

Maine. —  Strickland  v.  Parker,  54  Me.  263 ; 
Lothrop  f.  Arnold,  25  Me.  136,  43  Am.  Dec. 
256. 

Massachusetts. —  Goell  v.  Morse,  126  Mass. 
480;  Weld  V.  Oliver,  21  Pick.  559. 

Michigam. — Wight  v.  Roethlisberger,  116 
Mich.  241,  74  N.  W.  474. 

New  Hampshire. —  Lyman  v.  Boston,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  58  N.  H.  384;  White  v.  Brooks,  43 
N.  H.   402. 

New  York. —  Jackson  t.  Moore,  94  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  504,  87  N.  Y.  Suppl.  1101;  Griffin 
V.  Clark,  33   Barb.  46. 

Ohio. —  Morgan  i:  Hudnell,  52  Ohio  St. 
552,  40  N.  E.  716,  49  Am.  St.  Eep.  741,  27 
L.  R.  A.   862. 

Pennsylvania. — Agnew  r.  Johnson,  17  Pa. 
St.  373,  55  Am.  Dec.   565. 

South  Carolina. —  Harrelson  v.  Sarvis,  39 
S.  C.   14,   17  S.  E.   368. 

A  tenant  in  common  permitting  a  conver- 
sion of  the  common  property  is  not  a  neces- 
sary plaintiff  in  a  suit  by  his  cotenants  to 
recover  damages  for  the  conversion.  Sulli- 
van V.  Sherry,  111  Wis.  476,  87  N.  W.  471, 
87    Am.    St.    Eep.    890. 

66.  Karren  v.  Eainey,  30  Utah  7,  83  Pac. 
333.  See  also  Morehead  v.  Hall,  126  N.  C. 
213,  35  S.  E.  428. 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[88  Cye.]     119 


in  abatement  for  the  non-joinder  of  the  cotenants;  although,  if  all  of  the  cotenants 
were  not  joined  as  parties  plaintiff,  such  non-joinder  might  be  taken  advantage 
of  in  the  measure  of  damages."'  All  of  the  cotenants  need  not  join  for  the  recovery 
of  the  common  property  as  against  a  stranger, "'  and  tenants  in  common  may 
maintain  separate  actions  of  ejectment  to  recover  their  respective  portions. °° 
Where  a  demise  is  by  tenants  in  common  or  one  of  their  number  duly  authorized 
to  manage  and  care  for  the  property  and  to  collect  the  rents,  a  tenant  in  common 
may  sue  for  the  whole  rents,  without  the  joinder  of  his  cotenants; '» but  all  desiring 
benefit  of  a  recovery  must  be  made  parties  plaintiff."  If  a  tenant  in  common,  in 
the  absence  of  statute  or  agreement  to  the  contrary,  recovers  damages  for  injury 


67.  Starnes  v.  Quin,  6  Ga.  84;  Frazier  v. 
Spear,  2  Bibb  (Ky.)  385;  Eastin  v.  Joyce, 
85  Mo.  App.  433;  Cummings  v.  Masterson, 
42  Tex.  Civ.  App.  549,  93  S.  W.  500;  Logan 
V.  Robertson,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1904)  83  S.  W. 
395. 

68.  Alabama. — Lecroix  v.  Malone,  157  Ala. 
434,  47  So.  725;  Stodder  v.  Powell,  1  Stew. 
287. 

Alaska. —  Binswanger  v.  Henninger,  1 
Alaska  509. 

Maine. —  Jewett  v.  Whitney,  43  Me.  242; 
Boobier  v.  Boobier,  39  Me.  406. 

Massachusetts. —  Dewey  v.  Brown,  2  Pick. 
387. 

liew  Hampshire. — Hyde  v.  Noble,  13  N.  H. 
494,  38  Am.  Dec.  508. 

Pennsylvania. —  Shamburg  v.  Moorehead,  4 
Brewst.  92. 

South  Dakota. —  Mather  v.  Dunn,  11  S.  D. 
196,  76  N.  W.  922,  74  Am.  St.  Rep.  788. 

Tcauos.— Mitchell  v.  Mitchell,  80  Tex.  101, 
15  S.  W.  705;  Harber  p.  Dyches,  (1890)  14 
S.  W.  580;  Bounds  v.  Little,  75  Tex.  316,  12 
S.  W.  1109;  Carley  v.  Parton,  75  Tex.  98,  12 
S.  W.  950;  Pileher  v.  Kirk,  55  Tex.  208; 
May  V.  Slade,  24  Tex.  205;  Grassmeyer  v. 
Beeson,  18  Tex.  753,  70  Am.  Dec.  309;  Croft 
V.  Rains,  10  Tex.  520;  Kirby  v.  Blake,  (Civ. 
App.  1909)  115  S.  W.  674;  Caruthers  r.  Had- 
ley,  (Civ.  App.  1908)  115  S.  W.  80;  Keith 
V.  Keith,  39  Tex.  Civ.  App.  363,  87  S.  W. 
384;  Hintze  v.  Krabbenschmidt,  (Civ.  App. 
1897)  44  S.  W.  38. 

Vermont. —  Bigelow  v.  Rising,  42  Vt.  678. 

West  Virginia. — ^Voss  v.  King,  33  W.  Va. 
236,    10   S.   E.    402. 

One  devisee  can  sue  an  adverse  occupant 
of  the  common  property  in  the  names  of 
himself  and  his  cotenants  therein.  Young 
V.  Pate,   3  Dana    (Ky.)    306. 

69.  Galifomia. —  Covillaud  v.  Tanner,  7 
Cal.  38. 

Connecticut.  —  Robinson  v.  Roberts,  31 
Conn.  145. 

Georgia.—  Sanford  v.  Sanford,  58  Ga.  259. 

Kentucky. — Craig  v.  Taylor,  6  B.  Mon.  457. 

Worth  Carolina. —  Morehead  v.  Hall,  126 
N.  C.  213,  35  S.  E.  428. 

Tennessee. —  Hammett  v.  Blount,  1  Swan 
385. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §   147. 

In  the  event  of  a  sale  of  the  common  prop- 
erty by  one  cotenant  and  delivery  of  posses- 
sion to  the  vendee,  and  refusal  by  him  to 
permit   the    other    cotenant    to    exercise    his 


rights  therein,  the  cotenant  so  excluded  may 
either  bring  ejectment  against  said  vendee 
or  waive  the  tort,  aflSrm  the  sale,  and  bring 
an  action  of  assumpsit  against  said  vendor. 
Murley  v.  Ennis,  2  Colo.  300. 

Mines  and  minerals. —  Under  proper  cir- 
cumstances ejectment  may  be  maintained 
against  one  excluding  the  coSwner  of  a 
mine  or  well  from  possession.  Hebrard  v. 
Jefferson  Gold,  etc.,  Min.  Co.,  33  Cal.  290; 
Muller  V.  Boggs,  25  Cal.  175;  Rowe  v.  Baci- 
galluppi,  21  Cal.  633;  Mahoney  v.  Van 
.Winkle,  21  Cal.  552;  Hart  v.  Robertson,  21 
Cal.  346;  Clark  t\  Huber,  20  Cal.  196; 
Touchard  v.  Crow,  20  Cal.  150,  81  Am.  Dec. 
108;  Stark  v.  Barrett,  15  Cal.  361;  Waring 
V.  Crow,  11  Cal.  366;  Smith  v.  Starkweather, 
5  Day  (Conn.)  207;  Bush  v.  Bradley,  4  Day 
(Conn.)  298;  Bullion  Min.  Co.  v.  Croesus 
Gold,  etc.,  Min.  Co.,  2  Nev.  168,  90  Am.  Dec. 
526;  Hardy  v.  Johnson,  1  Wall.  (U.  S.)  371, 
17  L.  ed.  502.  But  a  tenant  in  common  can- 
not dispossess  one  in  possession  under  his 
cotenant,  except  possibly  after  notice  or 
other  act  terminating  the  cotenancy  or  the 
leave  or  license.  Ord  v.  Chester,  18  Cal. 
77. 

Each  tenant  in  common  is  entitled  to 
maintain  ejectment  according  to  his  own 
capacity,  regardless  of  the  disabilities  of 
their  cotenants.  Harrelson  v.  Sarvis,  39  S.  C. 
14,  17  S.  E.  368;  McFarland  v.  Stone,  17  Vt. 
165,  44  Am.  Deo.  325;  Merryman  v.  Hoover, 
107  Va.  485,  59  S.  E.  483. 

One  tenant  becoming  sole  owner. — ^Where 
by  assignment  of  the  interest  of  a  cotenant 
one  of  the  tenants  in  common  becomes  the 
sole  owner  of  leased  property,  such  assignee 
may  sue  in  his  own  name  under  a  statute  to 
recover  possession  by  summary  proceedings. 
De  Coursey  v.  Guarantee  Trust,  etc.,  Co.,  81 
Pa.  St.  217. 

70.  Fargo  v.  Owen,  79  Hun  (N.  Y.)  181, 
29  N.  Y.  Suppl.  611;  Griffin  v.  Clark,  33 
Barb.    (N.   Y.)    46. 

The  lessee  of  a  part  of  the  coowners  is 
liable  for  rent  on  a  contract  to  the  survivors 
of  a  common  owner,  even  if  he  did  not  exe- 
cute the  lease.  Codman  v.  Hall,  9  Allen 
(Mass.)    335. 

71.  Lee  Chuck  v.  Quan  Wo  Chong,  91  Cal. 
593,  28  Pac.  45;  Presbrey  v.  Presbrey,  13 
Allen  (Mass.)  281;  Jones  v.  De  Coursey,  12 
N.  Y.  App.  Div.  164,  42  N.  Y.  Suppl.  578 
[affirmed  in  161  N.  Y.  627,  55  N.  B.  1096] ; 
Keith  V.  Keith,  39  Tex.  Civ.  App.  363,  87 
S.  W.  384. 

[IV,  C,  2,  a,  (I)] 


120     [38  Cyc] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


to  the  entire  estate,  such  recovery  inures  to  the  benefit  of  all  of  the  cotenants 
therein,  respectively,  and  an  accounting  therefor  may  be  compelled.'^  But  a 
judgment  in  favor  of  a  tenant  in  common  does  not  prevent  his  cotenant  from 
recovering  from  the  trespasser  the  damages  he  has  sustained  by  such  trespass." 
(ii)  Actions  in  Which  Joinder  Is  Necessary.  It  is  held  that  tenants 
in  common  should  join  in  all  actions  for  injuries  to  the  common  estate,  whether 
ex  contractu  or  ex  delicto;  '*  and  so  as  to  an  action  of  assumpsit  or  for  the  recovery 
of  a  purchase-price  of  the  common  property,  upon  the  waiver  of  a  tort;  '^  and 
a  suit  for  the  use  and  occupation  of  the  common  land,  to  recover  rent,  must  be 
by  the  tenants  in  common  jointly  and  not  separately, '*  as  must  be  also  an  action 
to  recover  the  surplus  in  the  hands  of  the  mortgagee,  after  foreclosure  by  him 
of  the  whole  common  property  under  a  power;  "  or  for  the  recovery  of  an  obliga- 
tion due  to  the  tenants  in  common  jointly,  unless  such  of  them  as  are  not  made 
parties  plaintiff  have  relinquished  their  interest  in  such  obligation,''  and  the  parties 
interested  must  join  in  an  action  by  coparceners  before  a  severance  of  their  estate 


72.  Becnel  v.  Waguespac,  40  La.  Ann.  109, 
3  So.  536;  Bigelow  v.  Rising,  42  Vt.  678. 

73.  Gillum  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  622,  23  S.  W.  716. 

74.  Ceorgia. —  Carmichael  v.  Jordon,  131 
Ga.  514,  62  S.  E.  810. 

Maine. — -Lothrop  v.  Arnold,  25  Me.  136, 
43  Am.  Dec.  256;  Haskell  v.  Jones,  24  Me. 
222;  Bradley  v.  Boyton,  22  Me.  287,  39  Am. 
Dec.  5S2. 

Massachusetts. —  Gilmore  v.  Wilbur,  12 
Pick.  120,  22  Am.  Dec.  410;  May  v.  Parker, 
12  Pick.  34,  22  Am.  Dee.  393;  Merrill  v. 
Berkshire,  11  Pick.  269;  Daniels  v.  Daniels, 
7  Mass.   135. 

Mississippi. — Armstrong  v.  Cannady, 
(1903)  35  So.  138;  Haley  v.  Taylor,  77  Miss. 
867,  28  So.  752,  78  Am.  St.  Rep.  549. 

Missouri. — -Lane  v.  Dobyns,  11  Mo.  105; 
Smoot  V.  Wathen,  8  Mo.  522 ;  Miller  v.  Crig- 
ler,  83  Mo.  App.  395 ;  State  v.  Staed,  64  Mo. 
App.  453. 

New  Hampshire. — White  v.  Brooks,  43 
N.  H.  402. 

Neio  York.—  'De  Puy  v.  Strong,  37  N.  Y. 
372,  3  Keyes  603,  4  Transcr.  App.  239,  4  Abb. 
Pr.  N.  S.  340;  Jackson  v.  Moore,  94  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  504,  87  N.  Y.  Suppl.  1101;  Hill 
V.  Gibbs,  5  Hill  56;  Low  v.  Mumford,  14 
Johns.  426,  7  Am.  Dec.  469. 

North  Ga/rolina. —  Cain  v.  Wright,  50  N.  C 
282,  72  Am.  Dec.  551. 

Ohio. —  Morgan  v.  Hudnell,  52  Ohio  St. 
552,  40  N.  E.  716,  49  Am.  St.  Rep.  741,  27 
L.  R.  A.  862. 

Texas. —  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  35 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  351,  SO  S.  W.  247 ;  Galveston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Stockton,  15  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
145,  38  S.  W.  647;  Naugher  f.  Patterson,  9 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  168,  28  S.  W.  582. 

Wisconsin. —  Tipping  r.  Robbins,  71  Wis. 
507,  37  N.  W.  427 ;  Earll  v.  Stumpf,  56  Wis. 
50,  13  N.  W.  701. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tenancy  in  Com- 
mon," §  146. 

Nuisance  see  Tucker  v.  Campbell,  36  Me. 
346;  Low  v.  Munford,  14  Johns.  (K  Y.) 
426,  7  Am.  Dee.  469. 

Tort  in  the  nature  of  waste  see  Bullock  v. 
Hayward,  10  Allen   (Mass.)   460. 

Injuries  to  personalty  see  State  v.  True,. 25 

[IV,  C,  2,  a,  (I)] 


Mo.  App.  451;  Dubois  v.  Glaub,  52  Pa.  St. 
238. 

Trespass  quare  clausum  see  Gent  v.  Lynch, 
23  Md.  58,  87  Am.  Dec.  558;  Austin  v.  Hall,  13 
Johns.  (N.  Y.)  286,  7  Am.  Dec.  376;  Winters 
V.  McGhee,  3  Sn«ed  (Tenn.)  128;  Rowland  v. 
Murphy,  66  Tex.  534,  1  S.  W.  658;  May  v. 
Slade,  24  Tex.  205;  Esson  i\  Mayberry,  1 
Nova  Scotia  186. 

Cutting  timber  see  Bradley  v.  Boyton,  22 
Me.  287,  39  Am.  Dec.  582;  Armstrong  v. 
Canaday,  (Miss.  1903)  35  So.  138;  Haley  v. 
Taylor,  77  Miss.  867,  28  So.  752,  78  Am.  St. 
Rep.  549;  Blake  v.  Milliken,  14  N.  H.  213. 

The  common-law  rule  of  joinder  in  assump- 
sit may  be  abrogated  by  statute.  Bucknam 
f.  Brett,  35  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  596. 

But  persons  whose  rights  are  subordinate 
to  those  of-  plaintiffs  are  not  necessarily 
parties.  Spanish  Fork  v.  Hopper,  7  Utah 
235,  26  Pac.  293. 

A  defense  against  one  of  the  cotenants  is 
good  as  against  all  of  them,  if  an  injury  to 
the  common  estate  is  a  joint  one.  Lowery 
V.  Rowland,  104  Ala.  420,  16  So.  88. 

75.  Gilmore  v.  Wilbur,  12  Pick.  (Mass.) 
120,  22  Am.  Dec.  410;  Putnam  v.  Wise,  1 
Hill  (N.  Y.)  234,  37  Am.  Dec.  309;  Irwin  v. 
Brown,  35  Pa.  St.  331. 

76.  Dorsett  v.  Gray,  98  Ind.  273 ;  Webb  v. 
Conn,  1  Litt.  (Ky.)  82,  13  Am.  Dec.  225; 
Blanton  v.  Vanzant,  2  Swan  (Tenn.)  276; 
Doe  V.  Errington,  1  A.  &  E.  750,  3  L.  J.  K.  B. 
215,  3  N.  &  M.  646,  28  E.  C.  L.  349,  110  Eng. 
Reprint  1394;  Midgley  r.  Lovelace,  Carth. 
289,  90  Eng.  Reprint  771;  Wallace  v.  Mc- 
Laren, 1  M.  &  R.  516,  31  Rev.  Rep.  334,  17 
E.  C.  L.  685;  Burne  v.  Cambridge,  1  M.  & 
Rob.  539. 

But  where  all  of  the  cotenants  excepting 
one  died,  it  has  been  held  that  the  action  of 
assumpsit  for  the  use  and  occupation  of  the 
common  property  survived  to  the  survivor. 
Central  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Hartshorne,  3  Conn.  199. 

77.  Halliday  v.  Manton,  29  R.  I.  205,  69 
Atl.  847;  Clapp  v.  Pawtucket  Sav.  Inst  15 
R.  I.  489,  8  Atl.  697,  2  Am.  St.  Rep.  915. 

78.  Suydam  v.  Combes,  15  N.  J.  L  133- 
Coster  r.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Duer 
(N.  Y.)  43;  MeGrady  v.  McEae,  1  Tex.  App. 
Civ.  Cas.  §   1036.  ^^ 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


[38  Cyc]     121 


upon  a  warranty  to  the  ancestor."  Tenants  in  common  are  not  united  in  interest 
within  the  meaning  of  a  statute  requiring  such  persons  to  join  in  an  action  for 
the  recovery  of -property.^"  The  owner  of  an  undivided  interest  in  property 
cannot  sue  in  replevin  to  recover  possession  thereof.  All  the  owners  must  be 
joined.'^  The  failure  to  prove  that  plaintiffs  are  the  sole  tenants  in  common  of 
the  premises  in  an  action  which  must  be  brought  jointly  precludes  recovery  in 
the  absence  of  statute  to  the  contrary.*^ 

(hi)  Actions  in  Which  Joinder  Is  Permissive.  Tenants  in  common 
may  join  in  a  suit  for  the  recovery  of  the  common  property, '^  in  an  action  of 
waste, ^''  for  a  nuisance,^''  for  trespass  or  an  injunction  where  so  provided  by 
statute,*"  and  for  a  restraining  order  against  execution  in  ejectment,  where  they 
are  entitled  to  repayment  for  improvements,  even  though  all  of  them  were  not 
parties  defendant  in  the  ejectment  suit."  They  may  join  in  an  action  for  an 
injury  to  realty  or  personalty  even  if  each  of  them  is  in  separate  possession  of 
separate  parts  of  the  common  property,'*  in  covenant  or  assumpsit  for  money 
had  and  received,  to  recover  rents  or  share  of  income,*'  or  in  distraiat  for  rent,'" 
or  for  conversion  of  the  common  property."' 

(iv)  Actions  Which  Cotenants  Cannot  Maintain  Jointly.  As  the 
interest  of  the  tenants  in  common  are  several  and  not  joint  they  cannot,  at  the 
common  law,  jointly  maintain  a  real  action  in  relation  to  the  entire  common 
property;  but  they  must  sever,  in  the  absence  of  statute  to  the  contrary."^    The 


Especially  after  a  plea  in  abatement.  Gil- 
bert V.  Dickerson,  7  Wend;  (N.  Y.)  449,  22 
Am.  Dec.  592;  Goodspeed  v.  Wasatch  Silver 
Lead  Works,  2  Utah  263. 

79.  Tapscott  v.  Williams,  10  Ohio  442, 
holding  that  the  estate  of  coparceners  differs 
in  some  respects  from  that  of  tenants  in 
common,  so  that  in  many  cases  the  rules 
applicable  to  joint  tenancies  as  contra-dis- 
tinguished from  tenancies  in  common  pre- 
vail. 

80.  Mather  v.  Dunn,  11  S.  D.  196,  76 
N.  W.  922,  74  Am.  St.  Eep.  788. 

81.  McCabe  v.  Black  Eiver  Transp.  Co.,  131 
Mo.  App.  531,  110  S.  W.  606. 

Replevin  for  grain  raised  by  the  tenants  in 
common  cannot  be  maintained  by  one  of  them 
as  against  third  persons.  Carle  v.  Wall, 
(Ark.  1891)  16  S.  W.  293;  Titsworth  v. 
Frauenthal,  52  Ark.  254,  12  S.  W.  498;  Mc- 
Arthur  v.  Lane,  15  Me.  245 ;  Vermont  L.  &,  T. 
Co.  V.  Cardin,  19  Wash.  304,  53  Pac.  164. 

82.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  35  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  351,  80  S.  W.  247. 

83.  California. —  Goller  v.  Fett,  30  Cal. 
481. 

District  of  ColumMa. — Wheat  v.  Morris,  21 
D.  C.  11. 

Illinois. — West  Chicago  Park  Com'rs  v. 
Coleman,  108  111.  591. 

Mississippi. —  Corbin  v.  Cannon,  31  Miss. 
570.     ^ 

Nevada, — Alford  v.  Dewin,  1  Nev.  207. 

New  Mexico.- — ^Neher  v.  Armijo,  9  N.  M. 
325,  54  Pac.  236. 

United  States. —  Hicks  v.  Rogers,  4  Cranch 
165,  2  L.  ed.  583. 

But  if  the  action  be  speculative  merely, 
it  has  been  held  that  one  tenant  in  common 
cannot  maintain  an  action  of  trespass  to  try 
title  for  the  benefit  of  all.  Cromwell  v.  Holli- 
day,  34  Tex.  463. 

84.  Greenly  v.  Hall,  3  Harr.   (Del.)  9. 


85.  Parke  v.  Kilham,  8  Cal.  77,  68  Am. 
Dec.  310,  diversion  of  water. 

86.  Wagoner  v.  Silva,  139  Cal.  559,  73  Pac. 
433;  Smith  f.  Stearns  Rancho  Co.,  129  Cal. 
58,  61  Pac.  662. 

87.  Russell  v.  Defrance,  39  Mo.  506. 

88.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hart,  119 
Ind.  273,  21  N.  E.  753,  4  L.  R.  A.  549;  Ramr 
say  V.  Brown,  (Pa.)  17  Atl.  207;  Johnson  v. 
Goodwin,  27  Vt.  288. 

89.  Price  v.  Pickett,  21  Ala.  741;  Kidwell 
V.  Kidwell,  84  Ind.  224. 

Heirs. — Although  the  heirs  may  sue  jointly 
or  severally,  less  than  the  whole  number  of 
them  cannot  sue  jointly.  Kimball  v.  Sumner, 
62  Me.  305;  Blake  v.  Milliken,  14  N.  H. 
213. 

90.  Jones  v.  Gundrim,  3  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.) 
531. 

91.  Blake  v.  Milliken  14  N.  H.  213 ;  Steele 
V.  McGill,  172  Pa.  St.  100,  33  Atl.  146 ;  Sulli- 
van V.  Sherry,  111  Wis.  476,  87  N.  W.  471, 
87  Am.  St.  Rep.  890;  Welch  v.  Sackett,  12 
Wis.   243. 

Where  the  common  property  has  been 
mortgaged  to  secure  a  debt  of  one  of  the 
cotenants  on  his  promise  of  reimbursement 
to  his  cotenants  for  any  consequent  loss,  and 
the  mortgage  has  been  foreclosed,  a  joint 
action  was  maintained  by  said  cotenants 
against  the  one  in  default.  Steele  v.  Mc- 
Gill, 172  Pa.  St.  100,  33  Atl.  146. 

Tenants  in  common  may  support  a  joint 
action  against  an  administrator  who  has 
wrongfully  received  rents,  profits,  and  crops 
from  the  common  property.  Kidwell  v.  Kid- 
well,  84  Ind.  224. 

93.  California. —  Throckmorton  v.  Burr,  5 
Cal.  400. 

Kentucky. —  Briscoe  v.  MeGee,  2  J.  J. 
Marsh.  370. 

Massachusetts. — -Rehoboth  v.  Hunt,  1 
Pick.  224. 

[IV,  C,  2.  a,  (IV)] 


122     [38  Cyc] 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON 


rule  is  the  same  in  actions  of  account,  unless  parties  plaintiff  are  partners;'^  in 
actions  of  assumpsit,  brought  tuider  statutes,  in  the  nature  of  account;  °*  in  actions 
for  fraud  in  the  sale  of  property;  ^  and  so  as  to  an  action  to  set  aside  separate 
deeds  made  at  different  times,  of  the  respective  interests,  to  a  common  vendee.'" 
At  common  law  they  could  not  join  in  ejectment;  °'  but  this  rule  has  been  changed 
in  many  states,  sometimes  by  statute  and  sometimes  by  judicial  decisions." 

b.  Defendant.  In  actions  relating  to  cotenants,  all  parties  necessary  to  the 
determination  of  an  issue  should  be  made  either  parties  plaintiff  or  parties 
defendant."  But  where  there  is  a  purchase  of  property  in  common,  each  pur- 
chaser is  liable  only  for  his  share  of  the  purchase-price  and  he  should  not  be  sued 
jointly  with  the  purchaser  of  any  other  share  or  interest  in  said  property,  nor  should 
a  judgment  go  against  him  for  the  unpaid  purchase-money  of  such  other  share.' 
An  agreement  by  tenants  in  common  for  the  performance  of  services  in  relation 
to  the  common  property  being  joint,  the  liability  is  joint;  and  therefore  all  of 
the  tenants  in  common  should  be  made  parties  defendant;  ^  and  where  a  tort  has 
been  committed  by  one  tenant  in  common,  for  himself  and  as  agent  for  his 
cotenants,  within  the  scope  of  his  agency,  all  of  the  said  cotenants  are  liable  and 
may  be  made  parties  defendant,*  and  in  an  action  soimding  in  tort  either  all  or 
any  of  the  tort-feasors  may  be  sued.*  Where  a  statute  provides  that  tenants 
ia  common,  or  any  number  less  than  all,  may  jointly  or  severally  defend  any 


l>lew  Hampshire. —  Stevenson  v.  Cofferln,  20 
N.  H.  150;  Kand  V.  Dodge,  12  N.  H.  67. 

New  York. —  Decker  v.  Livingston,  15 
Johns.  479. 

Three  heirs  cannot  sue  jointly  if  there  be 
four  of  them.  Kimball  v.  Sumner,  62  Me. 
305. 

93.  McPherson  v.  McPherson,  33  N.  C.  391, 
53  Am.  Dec.  416 ;  McCreary  v.  Ross,  7  Watts 
(Pa.)  483;  Cotton  v.  Coit,  (Tex.  Civ.  App. 
1895)  SOS.  W.  281. 

94.  Mooers  v.  Bunker,  29  N.  H.  420. 

95.  Baker  v.  Jewell,  6  Mass.  460,  4  Am. 
Dec.   162. 

96.  Jeflfers  v.  Forbes,  28  Kan.  174. 

97.  De  Johnson  v.  Sepulbeda,  5  Cal.  149; 
Hillhouse  v.  Mix,  1  Root  (Conn.)  246,  1  Am. 
Dec.  41;  Doe  v.  Buford,  1  Dana  (Ky.)  481; 
Mantle  v.  Wellington,  Cro.  Jac.  166,  79  Eng. 
Reprint  145. 

98.  See  the  statutes  of  the  several  states. 
And  see  Wheat  v.  Morris,  21  D.  C.  11;  Swett 
V.  Patrick,  11  Me.  179;  Corbin  v.  Cannon,  31 
Miss.  570;  Gray  i;.  Givens,  26  Mo.  291;  Poole 
r.  Fleeger,  11  Pet.  (U.  S.)  185,  9  L.  ed.  680, 
955. 

Actions  for  the  recovery  of  mining  claims 
may  be  maintained  by  the  tenants  in  com- 
mon severally  or  jointly,  even  though  their 
undivided  interests  have  been  acquired  at 
different  times.  Binswanger  i'.  Henninger,  1 
Alaska  509;  Goller  v.  Fett,  30  Cal.  481.  The 
amount  due  to  each  cotenant  for  the  work- 
ing of  the  common  property  is  a  several  debt 
due  to  himself  alone.  Hall  v.  Fisher,  20 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  441. 

99.  Connecticut. —  Barnum  v.  Landon,  25 
Conn.  137. 

Kentucky. — ^Venable  v.  Beauchamp,  3 
Dana  321,  28  Am.  Dec.  74. 

Missouri. —  Nalle  v.  Thompson,  173  Mo. 
595,  73  S.  W.  599. 

tJew  York. —  Coster  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  6  Duer  43. 

[IV,  C,  2,  a,  (IV)] 


England. —  Fallowes  v.  Williamson,  11  Ves. 
Jr.  306,  32  Eng.  Reprint  1106.  And  see  cases 
cited  infra,  the  following  notes. 

The  mortgagee  of  one  tenant  in  common  is 
a  necessary  party  in  a  suit  for  an  accounting 
between  the  cotenants.  Howard  V.  Throck- 
morton, 59  Cal.  79. 

One  who  has  been  a  tenant  in  common  but 
has  divested  himself  of  his  title  therein  is 
not  a,  proper  party  defendant  in  an  ordinary 
suit  in  relation  thereto.  Lewis  v.  Night,  3 
Litt.  (Ky.)  223;  Peterson  v.  Fowler,  73  Tex. 
524,  11  S.  W.  534.  See  Barnum  f.  Landon, 
25  Conn.  137. 

Accounting. —  In  an  action  of  accounting 
only  such  tenant  in  common  as  has  received 
more  than  his  share  of  the  profits  is  a  proper 
party  defendant;  if  any  of  the  tenants  in 
common  be  partners,  such  partnership  may  be 
a  proper  party  defendant;  usually  each  ten- 
ant in  common  resisting  an  accounting  should 
be  made  a  separate  party  defendant  in  a 
separate  suit.  McPherson  v.  McPherson,  33 
N.  C.  391,  53  Am.  Dec.  416. 

1.  Lallande  v.  Wentz,  18  La.  Ann.  289. 

2.  Matter  of  Robinson,  40  N.  Y.  App.  Div. 
23,  57  N.  Y.  Suppl.  502. 

3.  Elliott  V.  McKay,  49  N.  C.  59. 

Nuisance. —  Ordinarily  the  use  of  the  com- 
mon property,  so  as  to  create  a  nuisance,  is 
not  within  the  power  of  any  cotenant  so  as 
to  bind  the  others  in  damages  for  such 
nuisance;  and  therefore  liability  for  such 
nuisance  ordinarily  attaches  only  to  the 
actual  tort-feasor.  Simpson  v.  Seavey,  8  Me. 
138,  22  Am.  Dec.  228. 

4.  Low  V.  Mumford,  14  Johns.  (N.  Y.) 
426,  7  Am.  Dec.  469. 

Negligence.--While  it  is  ordinarily  the  rule 
that  tenants  in  common  should  all  be  made 
defendants  in  an  action  for  negligence  respect- 
ing the  premises  owned  by  them,  yet  it  is  not 
necessary  nor  even  proper  to  do  so  where  the 
negligence  complained  of  is  the  act  of  one 


TENANCY  IN  COMMON—  TENANT     [38  CycJ    123 

action  it  is  not  necessary  to  make  such  tenants  in  common  parties  defendant 
against  whom  no  remedy  is  sought;^  and  it  seems  that,  although  the  general 
rule  is  that  a  tenant  in  common  cannot  maintain  an  action  of  trespass  in  respect 
to  the  common  land  he  may  separately  defend  the  position  and  the  possession 
of  the  land  held  in  common/  It  is  not  necessary  to  make  those  tenants  in  common 
parties  defendant,  against  whom  no  relief  is  sought  in  ejectment.' 

3.  Limitations.  A  bar  by  virtue  of  the  statute  of  limitations  against  some 
of  the  tenants  in  common  does  not  operate  as  against  the  others  because  their 
respective  interests  are  several  and  not  joint;  *  and  where  such  a  bar  exists,  a 
recovery  in  an  action  for  the  recovery  of  land  can  only  go  as  to  the  interest  of 
the  tenant  in  common  against  whom  the  bar  does  not  apply.*  Generally  the 
right  of  all  the  cotenants  will  be  saved  from  the  operation  of  the  statute  of  limita- 
tions by  any  cause  that  will  prevent  its  running  against  any  of  them.'"  One 
cotenant  cannot,  after  limitations  have  applied,  revive  a  debt,  so  as  to  create 
any  new  liability  therefor  as  against  his  cotenants.'^ 

.  Tenancy  in  coparcenary.    See  Tenancy  in  Common,  ante,  p.  5. 

Tenant,  in  the  broadest  sense,  a  purchaser  of  an  estate  in  the  land  or 
building  hired;  *  one  who  holds  or  possesses  lands  or  tenements  by  any  kind  of 
title,  either  in  fee,  for  life,  for  years,  or  at  will ;  ^  one  who  holds  or  possesses  lands 
or  tenements  by  a  kind  of  title;  ^  one  who  holds  or  possesses  lands  by  any  kind 
of  right.*  In  a  more  restricted  sense,  one  who  has  possession  of  the  premises 
of  another  in  subordination  to  that  other's  title,  and  with  his  consent;  *  the  party 
to  whom  a  lease  is  made;  °  one  who  holds  or  occupies  under  another  person; '  one 
who  has  the  occupation  or  temporary  possession  of  the  lands  or  tenements  whose 
title  is  in  another;  correlative  to  landlord;  *  one  who  has  an  occupation  or  tem- 
porary possession  of  lands  or  tenements,  whose  title  is  in  another;  one  who  has 
possession  of  any  place;  a  dweller,  an  occupant;  *  one  who  has  the  occupation  or 
temporary  possession  of  lands  or  tenements  whose  title  is  in  another;  *"  one  who 
occupies  land  or  premises  of  another,  in  subordination  to  that  other's  title  and 
with  his  assent,  express  or  implied."     (Tenant:  In  General,  see  Landlord  and 

in  possession  or  control  of  the  common  prop-  "  a  written  petition  describing  the  premises 

erty.     Baker  v.  Fritts,  143  111.  App.  465.  and  the  interest  therein  of  the  petitioner,"  a 

.5.  Karren  *.  Rainey,  30  Utah  7,  83  Pac.  description  of  the  occupant  as  "  tenant "  is 

333.  not  sufficiently  definite]. 

6.  Esson  V.  Mayberry,  1  Nova  Scotia  186.  4.  Webster    Diet,    [quoted   in   Woolsey   i: 

7.  Waring,  v.  Crow;  11  Cal.  366.  See  also  State,  30  Tex.  App.  346,  347,  17  S.  W. 
Posgate  V.  Herkimer  Mfg.,  etc.,  Co.,  12  Barb.  546]. 

(N.    Y.)    352    [affirming  9    Barb.    287,    and  A  person  must  have  some  estate  be  it  ever 

affirmed  in  12  N.  Y.  580].  so  little,  such  as  that  of  a  tenant  at  will  or 

8.  Chipman  v.  Hastings,  50  Cal.  310;  Wil-  on  sufferance,  to  be  a  tenant.  Occupation  as 
liams  V.  Sutton,  43  Cal.  65 ;  Pope  v.  Brass-  servant  or  licensee  does  not  make  one  a  ten- 
field,  110  Ky.  128,  61  S.  W.  5,  22  Ky.  L.  Hep.  ant.  Presby  f.  Benjamin,  169  N.  Y.  377, 
1613;  Johnson  v.  Schumacher,  72  Tex.  334,  12  380,  62  N.  E.  430,  57  L.  R.  A.  317. 

S.  W.  207;  MoFarland  v.  Stone,  17  Vt.  165,  5.  Lightbody   v.   Truelsen,    39    Minn.    310, 

44  Am.  Dec.  325.  313,  40  N.  W.  67. 

9.  Johnson  v.  Schumacher,  72  Tex.  334,  12  6.  Becker  v.  Becker,  13  N.  Y.  App.  Div. 
S.  W.  207.  342,   349,   43   N".   Y.   Suppl.    17;    Jackson  v. 

10.  Gourdine  v.  Theus,  1  Brev.  (S.  C.)  326.      Harsen,  7  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  323,  326,  17  Am.  Dec. 

11.  Buck  V.  Spofford,  40  Me.  328.  617. 

1.  Bowe  V.  Hunking,  135  Mass.  380,  383,  7.  Birks  v.  Allison,  13  C.  B.  N.  S.  12,  23, 

46  Am.  Rep.  471.  106  E.  C.  L.  11. 

•  2.  Bouvier    L.    Diet,    [quoted    in    Clift   V.  8.  Webster   Diet,    [quoted  in  Place  v.   St. 

White,  12  N.  Y.  519,  527].     See  also  Walker  Paul  Title  Ins.,  etc.,  Co.,  67  Minn.  126,  129, 

f.  McCusker,  71  Cal.  594  597,  12  Pac.  723;  69  N.  W.  706,  64  Am.  St.  Rep.  404]. 

Hosford  V.  Ballard,  39  N.  Y.  147,  151.  9.  Webster    Diet,    [quoted   in    Woolsey   v. 

3.  McAdam  Landl.  &  Ten.  [quoted  in  Fuchs  State,  30  Tex.  App.  346,  347,  17  S.  W.  546], 

V.  Cohen,  19  N.  Y.  Suppl.  236,  22  N.  Y.  Civ.  10.  Webster  Diet,  [quoted  in  Birks  v.  Alli- 

Proe.  269,  29  Abb.  N.  Cas.  56,  where  it  was  son,    13    C.   B.   N.   S.    12,   23,    106   E.    C.   L. 

held  that  under  a  statute  requiring  the  appli-  11]. 

cant  in  forcible  entry  and  detainer  to  present  11.  Wood  Landl.  &  Ten.   [quoted  in  Alex- 

[IV,  C,  3] 


124    [38Cye.j  TENANT— TENANT  AT  WILL 

Tenant,  24  Cyc.  845.  By  the  Curtesy,  see  Curtesy,  12  Cyc.  1001.  In  Common, 
see  Tenancy  in  Common,  ante,  p.  1.  Joint,  see  Joint  Tenancy,  23  Cyc.  482. 
Life,  see  Estates,  16  Cyc.  614.) 

TENANTABLE  REPAIR.    See  20  Cyc.  1259  note  38. 

Tenant  at  sufferance.  One  who  comes  into  possession  by  a  lawful 
demise  and,  after  his  term  is  ended,  continues  wrongfully  and  holds  over;  '^  one 
who  having  entered  under  a  lawful  title  holds  over  without  right  and  by  reason 
of  the  laches  of  his  landlord,  after  the  termination  of  the  interest ;  *^  one  who, 
having  come  into  possession  by  right,  holds  over  without  right ; "  one  who  at 
first  came  in  by  lawful  demise  or  title,  and,  afterward,  continues  wrongfully  in 
possession;  ^^  one  who  comes  to  the  possession  of  lands  or  tenements  by  a  lawful 
title,  but  keeps  them  afterward  without  any  title  at  all;^°  one  who  originally 
comes  in  by  right,  but  continues  by  wrong ;  *'  one  that  comes  into  possession  of 
land  by  lawful  title,  but  holdeth  over  by  wrong,  after  the  determination  of  his 
interest.^*     (See  Landlord  and  Tenant,  24  Cyc.  1041.) 

Tenant  at  will.  One  who  holds  lands  or  tenements  let  to  him  by  another 
at  the  will  of  the  lessor;^"  one  who  enters  into  the  possession  of  land,  etc.,  of 
another  lawfully,  but  for  no  definite  term  or  purpose,  and  whose  possession  is 


ander  %.  Gardner,  123  Ky.  552,  554,  96  S.  W. 
818,  29  Ky.  L.  Eep.  958,  124  Am.  St.  Eep. 
378;  Adams  v.  Gilchrist,  63  Mo.  App.  639, 
645;  Dixon  v.  Ahem,  19  Nev.  422,  426,  14 
Pac.  598;  Forrest  v.  Durnell,  86  Tex.  647, 
650,  26  S.  W.  481;  Francis  v.  Holmes,  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.  1909)    118  S.  W.  881,  883]. 

Held  not  to  include  an  under-tenant,  in  a 
statute  relating  to  distress  for  rent.  Coles 
!;.  Marquand,  2  Hill  (N.  Y.)  447,  449.  But 
see  Farwell  v.  Jameson,  23  Ont.  App.  517, 
522,  where  the  statute  included  subtenant 
and  assignees  of  the  tenant. 

"  Cropper "  distinguished  see  Burgie  ». 
Davis,  34  Ark.  179,  182;  Harrison  v.  Ricks, 
71  N.  C.  7,  10,  11;  Strain  v.  Gardner,  61  Wis. 
174,  ,181,  21  N.  W.  35. 

Lodger  distinguished  see  White  v.  May- 
nard,  HI  Mass.  250,  253,  15  Am.  Rep.  28; 
Linwood  Park  Co.  v.  Van  Dusen,  63  Ohio  St. 
183,  200,  518  N.  E.  576  [ciimjr  1  McAdam 
Landl.  &  Ten.  621]. 

"  Tenant  in  possession  "  see  Walker  v.  Mc- 
Ousker,  1  Cal.  594,  596,  12  Pac.  723;  Harris 
V.  Reynolds,  13  Cal.  514,  517,  73  Am.  Dec. 
600 ;  Whithed  v.  St.  Anthony,  etc.,  El.  Co.,  9 
N.  D.  224,  227,  83  N.  W.  238,  81  Am.  St. 
Rep.  562,  50  L.  R.  A.  254. 

"  Tenant  of  the  freehold "  see  Culpeper 
County  K.  Gorrell,  20  Gratt.   (Va.)   484,  511. 

12.  Godfrey  v.  Walker,  42  Ga.  562,  574. 

13.  Kunzie  v.  Wixom,  39  Mich.  384,  387. 

14.  Allen  v.  Carpenter,  15  Mich.  25,  34 
{citing  Coke  Litt.  575;  2  Blackstone  Comm. 
150],  holding  that  the  term  as  used  in  the 
statute  providing  that  "  all  estates  at  will 
and  at  sufferance  may  be  determined  by 
either  party,  by  three  months'  notice  given  to 
the  other  party,"  is  not  used  in  a  sense  which 
would!  entitle  any  one  holding  over  wrong- 
fully to  the  statutory  notice. 

15.  Livingston  v.  Tanner,  12  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
481,  484  [citing  2  Blackstone  Comm.  150;  4 
Kent  Comm.  116;  Crabb  Law  Real  Prop.]. 

16.  Pleasants  v.  Claghorn,  2  Miles  (Pa.) 
302,  304. 

17.  Coke  Litt.  [quoted  in  Hanson  v.  John- 
son, 62  Md.  25,  29,  50  Am.  Rep.  199]. 


18.  Kent  Comm.  [quoted  in  Fielder  v. 
Childs,  73  Ala.  567,  577;  Johnson  v.  Donald- 
son, 17  R.  I.  107,  108,  20  Atl.  242].  See  also 
Kellogg  V.  Kellogg,  6  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  116, 
130. 

Examples  of  this  kind  of  tenure  usually 
given  are  a  lessee  for  a  term  of  years  or  for 
the  life  of  another  person  who  holds  the  pos- 
session of  the  lands  or  tenements  after  his  term 
or  estate  has  expired.  It  is  in  effect  nothing 
more  than  the  continuance  of  a  possession 
lawfully  taken  after  the  title  under  which  it 
was  taken  has  ended.  Pleasants  v.  Claghorn, 
2  Miles  (Pa.)  302,  304. 

If  the  lessee  of  a  tenant  for  life  is  in  pos- 
session at  the  time  of  the  life-tenant's  death, 
and  continues  to  hold  over,  he  becomes  a 
tenant  by  sufferance;  but  if  the  lessee  is  not 
in  possession,  or  does  not  hold  over,  the  mere 
recognition  of  a  lease  previously  made  does 
not  constitute  such  tenancy.  Wright  V. 
Graves,  80  Ala.  416,  420  [citing  Taylor 
Landl.  &  Ten.  §   113]. 

Such  tenant  is  not  a  trespasser.  Bright  v. 
McOuat,  40  Ind.  521,  525  [citing  Washburn 
Real  Prop.]. 

Distinguished  from  "tenant  at  will." 
Willis  V.  Harrell,  118  Ga.  906,  909,  45  S.  E. 
794. 

Creation  of  estate  by  act  of  the  parties, 
and  holding  over,  is  necessary  to  make  one  a 
tenant  at  suflTerance,  and  where  one  holds 
over  after  the  termination  of  an  estate  cast 
upon  him  by  operation  of  law,  he  is  not  a 
tenant  at  sufferance  but  a  trespasser.  Patti- 
Bon  V.  Dryer,  98  Mich.  564,  566,  57  N.  W. 
814. 

19.  Spalding  v.  Hall,  6  D.  C.  123,  125 
[citing  2  Blackstone  Comm.  145;  4  Kent 
Comm.  110],  and  adding:  "But  this  defini- 
tion gives  a  very  imperfect  idea  of  the  rights 
and  obligations  of  a  landlord  and  tenant,  be- 
tween whom  a  tenancy  at  will  subsists.  A 
tenancy  at  will  arose  in  every  case  where  one 
man  leased  lands  or  tenements  to  another, 
and  no  iixed  period  of  time  was  agreed 
upon  at  which  the  occupancy  thereof  should 
cease." 


TENANT  AT  WILL— TEN  DA  Y8'  AD  VEBTISING    [38  Cyc]    125 


subject  to  the  determination  of  the  landlord  at  any  time  he  sees  fit  to  put  an  end 
to  it;  ^°  one  who  enters  into  the  possession  of  the  lands  or  tenements  of  another, 
lawfully,  but  for  no  definite  term  or  purpose,  but  whose  possession  is  subject  to 
termination  by  the  landlord  at  any  time  he  sees  fit  to  put  an  end  to  it.^'  (See 
Landlord  and  Tenant,  24  Cyc.  1036.) 

TENANT  BY  THE  CURTESY.     See  Curtesy,  12  Cyc.  1001. 

TENANT  FACTORY.  As  defined  by  the  New  York  Labor  Law,  a  building, 
separate  parts  of  which  are  occupied  and  used  by  different  persons,  companies, 
or  corporations,  and  one  or  more  of  which  parts  is  so  used  as  to  constitute  in  law 
a  factory.^^ 

Tenant  for  life.  One  to  whom  lands  or  tenements  are  granted  or  devised, 
or  to  which  he  derives  title  by  operation  of  law  for  the  term  of  his  own  life,  or 
the  life  of  another.^"     (See  Estates,  16  Cyc.  614.) 

Tenant  in  fee  simple.     See  Estates,  16  Cyc.  601. 

Tenant's  fixtures.  In  its  strict  legal  definition,  a  term  understood  to 
signify  things  which  are  afiixed  to  the  freehold  of  the  demised  premises,  but  which 
nevertheless  the  tenant  is  allowed  to  disannex  and  take  away,  provided  he  season- 
ably exert  his  right  to  do  so.^* 

Ten  clear  days.     See  Clear  Days,  7  Cyc.  188. 

Tend.  To  move  in  a  certain  direction;  to  be  directed,  as  to  any  end,  object, 
or  purpose;  to  aim;  to  have  or  give  leaning;  to  exert  activity,  to  influence;  to 
serve  as  a  means ;  to  contribute. ^^ 

Ten  days'  advertising,  a  notice  published  at  least  ten  times,  and  on 
ten  distinct  days.^° 


20.  Robb  V.  San  Antonio  St.  E.  Co.,  82 
Tex.  392,  394,  18'  S.  W.  707;  Emerson  v. 
Emerson,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1896)  35  S.  W. 
425,  426. 

21.  Wood  Landl.  &  Ten.  [quoted  in  Thomp- 
son V.  Baxter,  107  Minn.  122,  124,  119  N.  W. 
797,  21  L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  575]. 

He  is  called  "  tenant  at  will  because  he 
hath  no  certain  nor  sure  estate,  for  the  lessor 
may  put  him  out  when  he  please."  Thomp- 
son V.  Baxter,  107  Minn.  122,  124,  119  N.  W. 
797,  21  L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  575  Iciting  Wood 
Landl.  &  Ten.  43];  Post  v.  Post,  14  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  253,  258  [citing  Coke  Litt.  §  68;  2 
Cruise  269;  4  Kent  Comm.  110];  Barry  v. 
Smith,  1  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  240,  243,  23  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  129  [citing  McAdam  Landl.  &  Ten. 
35]. 

It  includes  one  who  is  placed  on  land  with- 
out any  terms  prescribed  or  rent  reserved, 
and  has  a  mere  occupancy.  Stoltz  v.  Kretsch- 
mar,  '24  Wis.  283,  285  [citing  4  Kent 
Comm.  114].  "If  one,  with  the  consent  of 
the  owner,  is  let  into,  or  remains  in  posses- 
sion, under  circumstances  not  showing  an  in- 
tention to  create  a  freehold  interest,  or  a 
tenancy  from  year  to  year,  he  is  a  tenant  at 
will.  A  vendee  let  in  under  an  oral  agree- 
ment of  purchase,  is  a  tenant. at  will,"  and  a 
parol  gift  of  land  creates  a  mere  tenancy  at 
will,  which  may  be  revoked  or  disaffirmed  by 
the  donor.  Collins  v.  Johnson,  57  Ala.  304, 
307  [citing  1  Washburn  Real  Prop.  511]. 

A  person  who  enters  and  holds  land  under 
a  contract  to  buy  it  is  to  be  regarded  at  law 
as  at  least  a  tenant  at  will.  Jones  v.  Jones, 
2  Rich.   (S.  C.)   542. 

A  tenant  holding  over  is  not  a  tenant  at 
will,  unless  he  holds  over  at  the  express  or 
implied  consent  of  the  landlord.  Benfey  v. 
Congdon,  40  Mich.  283,  285. 


Distinguished  from  "  tenant  at  suflferance  " 
see  Willis  v.  Harrell,  118  Ga.  906,  909,  45 
S.  E.  794. 

22.  People  v.  Eno,  134  N.  Y.  App.  Div. 
527,  530,  119  N.  Y.  Suppl.  600;  Minsky  v. 
Weller,  63  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  244,  245,  116  N.  Y. 
Suppl.   628. 

23.  In  re  Hyde,  41  Hun  (N.  Y.)  72,  75; 
Hyde  v.  Gage,  11  N.  Y.  Civ.  Proc.  155,  159. 

24.  Wall  V.  Hinds,  4  Gray  (Mass.)  256, 
270,  64  Am.  Dec.  64,  where  the  term  was  held 
to  include  gas  and  water  pipes. 

25.  Webster  Diet,  [quoted  in  Hogue  v. 
State,  93  Ark.  316,  322,  124  S.  W.  783,  where 
it  is  said :  "  To  say  that  a  thing  tends  or  has 
a  tendency  to  establish  a  certain  state  of 
facts  is  not  a  declaration  as  to  the  weight  to 
be  given  to  it,  but  is  a  mere  statement  that 
it  is  directed  toward  or  moves  in  the  direction 
of  a  certain  result,  the  degree  of  its  force  not 
being  mentioned.  To  say  that  a  circumstance 
tends  to  prove  the  issue  is  no  more  than 
saying  that  it  may  be  considered  for  the  pur- 
pose of  determining  the  issue"]. 

"  The  statement  that  there  has  been  evi- 
dence '  tending  to  show '  a  particular  fact, 
is  equivalent  to  a  statement  that  evidence  has 
been  offered  relating  to  such  fact.  The  force 
and  effect  of  the  evidence  is  in  no  sense  sug- 
gested by  the  term.  .  .  .  The  word  '  tending ' 
...  in  its  primary  sense  .  .  .  means  direc- 
tion or  course  towards  any  object,  effect,  or 
result  — drift."  White  f.  State,  153  Ind. 
689,  691,  692,  54  N.  E.  763  [citing  Webster 
Int.  Diet.  1484]. 

"  Tends  to  expose  "  see  Turton  v.  New  York 
Recorder,  3  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  314,  318,  22  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  766. 

26.  Maxwell  v.  Burns,  (Tenn.  Ch.  App. 
1900)  59  S.  W.  1067,  1071,  where  such  was 
held  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  as  used 


126     [38  Cyc]  TENDED  LINE 

Tended  line,    a  line  with  a  single  hook  fastened  to  any  object  upon  the 
banks  or  upon  the  ice.^' 

in  a  decree  for  the  sale  of  personalty  of  a  27.  State  f.  Stevens,  69  Vt.  411,  414,  39 
decedent's  estate  "  after  ten  days'  advertis-  Atl.  80,  where  such  was  held  to  be  the  mean- 
ing." "An  advertisement  on  one  day  ten  days  ing  of  the  term  as  used  in  a  statute  imposing 
prior  to  the  sale  would  certainly  not  be  '  ten  a  penalty  upon  certain  fishing,  except  fishing 
days'  advertising,'  nor  would  a  publication  through  the  ice  with  not  more  than  fifteen 
three  times  within  that  time  be  '  ten  days'  tended  lines, 
advertising.' " 


TENDER 

By  Alva  R.  Hunt* 

I.  DEFINITION,  131 
II,  NECESSITY  OR  AVAILABILITY,  132 

A.  Necessity,  132 

B.  Demands  Upon  Which  Tender  May  Be  Made,  133 

C.  When  Failure  to  Make  Tender  Excused  or  Waived,  134 

III.  FORM,  REQUISITES,  AND  SUFFICIENCY,  137 

A.  Amount,  137 

1.  Rule  Stated,  137 

2.  Interest  and  Costs,  138 

3.  Tender  of  More  Than  Is  Due  and  Demand  For  Change,  139 

a.  In  General,  139 

b.  Waiver  of  Objection,  140 

4.  Tender  of  Balance  Over  Offset,  140 

5.  Tender  on  Several  Demands,  140 

6.  Waiver  of  Objection  to  Amount,  141 

B.  Manner,  141 

1.  In  General,  141 

2.  Actual  Offer,  142 

3.  Ability  to  Perform,  142 

4.  Actual  Production  of  Thing  Tendered,  143 

a.  In  General,  143 

b.  Counting  Out  Money,  144 

c.  Waiver,  144 

5.  Tender  in  Writing;  Statutory  Provisions,  145 
G.  Medium,  146 

D.  Time  and  Place,  147 

1.  Time,  147 

a.  In  General,  147 

b.  Time  of  Day,  148 

c.  Premature  Tender,  149 

d.  Tender  After  Action  Brought,  149 

e.  Waiver  of  Objection  to  Time,  150 

2.  Place,  150 

a.  Where  Place  Is  Appointed,  150 

b.  Where  no  Place  Is  Appointed,  150 

c.  Deposit  in  Bank  or  Other  Depository,  151 

E.  Necessity  That  Tender  Be  Unconditional,  152 

1.  In  General,  152 

2.  Amount  Offered  Must  Be  Admitted  to  Be  Due;  Payment    Under 

Protest,  153 

3.  Tender  Conditioned  Upon  the  Surrender  of  Evidence  of  Indebtedness 

or  Security,  154 

4.  Demanding  Receipt  or  Discharge,  154 

F.  By  Whom  Made,  155 

1.  In  General,  155 

2.  Joint  Debtor,  155 

3.  Ratification  of  Unauthorized  Tender,  156 

*  Author  of  "  Hunt  on  Tender." 
127 


128     [38  CycJ  TENDER 

G.  To  Whom  Made,  156 

1.  In  General,  156 

2.  To  Agent,  Attorney,  or  Servant,  156 

3.  To  Joint  Creditor,  157 
H.   Tender  of  Specific  Articles,  158 

IV.  Keeping  Tender  Good,  i58 

A.  Necessity,  158 

B.  Manner,  160 

1.  In  General,  160 

2.  Depositing  Money,  161 

G.  Effect  of  Subsequent  Demand  and  Refusal  to  Pay,  161 

V.  Effect  of  Tender,  i62 

A.  In  General,  162 

B.  On  Collateral  Benefits,  Securities,  and  Liens,  163 

C.  As  Admission  of  Liability,  163 

D.  With  Regard  to  Refusal  or  Acceptance,  164 

E.  Tender  of  Specific  Articles,  165 

VI.   PLEADING,    PAYING    MONEY    INTO    COURT,    AND    PROCEDURE    THERE- 
UPON, 166 

A.  Pleading  Tender,  166 

1.  Necessity,  166 

2.  Nature  of  Plea,  166 

3.  Manner  of  Pleading,  and  Sufficiency  of  Allegations,  167 

a.  In  General,  167 

b.  Particular  Allegations,  168 

(i)    Place,  168 
(ii)    Time,  168 

(hi)  Medium  and  Amount,  168 
(iv)   Continuing  Readiness,  169 
(v)   Profert  In  Curia,  169 

4.  Joinder  of  Pleas,  170 

B.  Demurrer,  Reply,  or  Motion  to  Make  Definite,  170 
G.  Paying  Money  Into  Court,  171 

1.  Necessity,  171 

a.  In  General,  171 

b.  Where  Lien  Is  Discharged  by  Tender,  172 

c.  Effect  of  Failure  to  Pay,  173 

d.  Waiver,  173 

2.  Time  of  Payment,  174 

3.  Arrwunt  to  Be  Paid,  174 

4.  Medium  of  Payment,  174 

5.  Notice  of  Payment,  175 

6.  To  Whom  Paid,  175 

7.  Effect,  176 

8.  Withdrawal  of  Money  Paid  in,  176 

a.  By  Tenderer,  176 

b.  By  Tenderee,  177 

D.  Evidence,  178 

E.  TriaZ,  179 

F.  Judgment,  180 

CROSS-REFBRENCXiS 

For  Matters  Relating  to: 

Deposit  LQ  Court  in  General,  see  Deposits  in  Gourt,  13  Cyc.  1030. 
Legal  Tender  as  Medium  of  Payment,  see  Payment,  30  Gyc.  1212. 


TENDER  [38  Cye.]     129 

For  Matters  Relating  to — (continued) 
Offer  of  Judgment : 
In  General,  see  Judgments,  23  Cyc.  729. 
Effect  on  Liability  For  Costs,  see  Costs,  11  Cyc.  71. 
Payment  Into  Court  in  Admiralty  Suit,  see  Admiralty,  1  Cyc.  870. 
Tender: 
As  Affecting  Right  to  Exercise  Power  of  Sale,  see  Mortgages,  27  Cyc.  1452. 
As  Condition  Precedent  to: 
Accrual  of  Right  of  Action  as  Affecting  Statute  of  Limitations,  see 

Limitations  op  Actions,  25  Cyc.  1210. 
Action: 

By  Buyer  For  Breach  of  Warranty  on  Sale  of  Goods,  see  Sales,  35 

Cyc.  435. 
By  Purchaser  of  Land  For  Breach  of  Contract,  see  Vendor  and 

Purchaser. 
By  Servant,  see  Master  and  Servant,  26  Cyc.  997. 
For  Breach  of  Contract,  see  Sales,  35  Cyc.  619. 
For  Conversion,  see  Trover  and  Conversion. 
For  Damages,  see  Sales,  35  Cyc.  584. 
For  Possession,  see  Vendor  and  Purchaser. 
For  Price,  see  Sales,  35  Cyc.  531,  607;  Vendor  and  Purchaser. 
For  Specific  Performance,  see  Specific  Performance,  36  Cyc.  701. 
On  Administration  Bond,  see  Executors  and  Administrators,  18 

Cyc.  1286. 
To  Attack  Tax  Title,  see  Taxation,  37  Cyc.   1496. 
To  Declare  and  Enforce  Trust,  see  Trusts. 
To  Recover  Money  Had  and  Received,  see  Money  Received,  27  Cyc. 

870. 
To  Redeem  From  Execution  Sale,  see  Executions,  17  Cyc.  1335. 
Equitable  Relief,  see  Equity,  16  Cyc.  140. 
Relief  Against: 
Assessment,  see  Municipal  Corporations,  28  Cyc.  1187;  Taxation, 

37  Cyc.  1135. 
Release,  see  Release,  34  Cyc.  1071. 
Usury,  see  Usury. 
Rescission  of  Contract,  see  Sales,  35  Cyc.  150;  Vendor  and  Purchaser. 
As  Defense  to  Action  on: 
Bond,  see  Bonds,  5  Cyc.  818. 
Contract,  see  Contracts,  9  Cyc.  694. 
As  Discharge  of  Surety,  see  Principal  and  Surety,  32  Cyc.  172. 
As  Ground  For  Restraining  Foreclosure  of  Mortgage,  see  Mortgages,  27 

Cyc.  1455,  1538. 
As  Prerequisite  to  Equitable  Relief,  see  Equity,  16  Cyc.  140. 
Averment  as  to  in: 

Bill,  Complaint,  Declaration,  or  Petition  in  Suit : 
For  Mortgage  Foreclosure,  see  Mortgages,  27  Cyc.  1855. 
For  Specific  Performance,  see  Specific  Performance,  36  Cyc.  779. 
In  Action  on  Contract,  see  Contracts,  9  Cyc.  723. 
Before  Suit  For  Specific  Performance  by: 
Vendee,  see  Specific  Performance,  36  Cyc.  702. 
Vendor,  see  Specific  Performance,  36  Cyc.  701. 
By  Purchaser  as  Condition  Precedent  to  Rescission  of  Contract  of  Sale  of: 
Goods,  see  Sales,  35  Cyc.  150. 
Land,  see  Vendor  and  Purchaser. 
By  Vendor  to  Obtain  Reconveyance  of  Mineral  Lands,  see  Mines  and 
Minerals,  27  Cyc.  681  note  25. 
[9] 


130     [38  Cyc.J  TENDER 

For  Matters  Relating  to — {continued) 
Tender —  {continued) 

Distress  For  Rent  After,  as  Wrongful, Distress,  see  Landlord  and  Tenant, 

24  Cyc.  1326. 
Effect  as  Extinguishing  Lien  on  Trespassing  Animal  For  Injuries  Done, 

see  Animals,  2  Cyc.  407. 
Effect  on  Liability: 
For  Costs: 
In  General,  see  Costs,  11  Cyc.  78,  82. 
In  Action  to  Redeem  From  Mortgage  Foreclosure,  see  Moetgages, 

27  Cyc.  1865. 
In  Admiralty  Suit,  see  Admiralty,  1  Cyc.  909. 
In  Suit  For  Salvage,  see  Salvage,  35  Cyc.  788. 
For  Interest  on  Award  in  Condemnation  Proceedings,   see  Eminent 

Domain,  15  Cyc.  933. 
For  Loss  or  Injury  to  Goods  Shipped,  see  Shipping,  36  Cyc.  259. 
For  Subsequent  Interest,  see  Interest,  22  Cyc.  1555. 
Of  Executor  or  Administrator  For  Interest,  see  Executors  and  Admin- 
istrators, 18  Cyc.  639. 
In  Admiralty  Proceedings,  see  Admiralty,  1  Cyc.  870. 
Necessity  For  in  Proceedings: 
To  Recover  Goods  Sold  Conditionally,  see  Sales,  35  Cyc.  700. 
To  Redeem  From  Mortgage  Foreclosure,  see  Mortgages,  27  Cyc.  1830. 
Of  Amount: 

Due  on  Usurious  Note  as  Condition  Precedent  to  Relief,  see  Usury. 

Of  Assessment  For  Public  Improvement  as  Condition  Precedent  to 

Relief  Against,  see  Municipal  Corporations,  28  Cyc.  1187. 
Of  Lien  or  Indebtedness  on  Property  as  Condition  Precedent  to  Action 

For  Conversion,  see  Trover  and  Conversion. 
Required  to  Redeem  From  Chattel  Mortgage,  see  Chattel  Mortgages, 

7  Cyc.  88. 
Required  to  Redeem  From  Execution  Sale,  see  Executions,  17  Cyc. 

1332. 
Required  to  Redeem  From  Tax-Sale,  see  Taxation,  37  Cyc.  1411. 
Of  Bribe  as  Element  of  Bribery,  see  Bribery,  5  Cyc.  1039. 
Of  Compensation  For  Private  Property  Taken  For  Public  Use,  see  Eminent 

Domain,  15  Cyc.  783. 
Of  Consideration  as  Prerequisite  to  Right  to  Attack  Release,  see  Release, 

34  Cyc.  1071. 
Of  Conveyance  as  Condition  Precedent  to  Action  For: 
Possession  of  Land  Sold,  see  Vendor  and  Purchaser. 
Price  of  Land,  see  Vendor  and  Purchaser. 
Specific  Performance,  see  Specific  Performance,  36  Cyc.  701. 
Of  Deed,  see  Vendor  and  Purchaser. 
Of  Demi-Mark  in  Pleading  to  Writ  of  Right,  see  Real  Actions,  33  Cyc. 

1546. 
Of  Fare: 
For  Transportation,  see  Carriers,  6  Cyc.  547. 
To  Avoid  Ejectment  From  Train,  see  Carriers,  6  Cyc.  553. 
Of  Freight  Charges  by  Shipper,  see  Carriers,  6  Cyc.  496;  Shipping,  36 

Cyc.  307. 
Of  Goods  as  Condition  Precedent  to  Action  by  Seller  For: 
Damages,  see  Sales,  35  Cyc.  584. 
Price  or  Value,  see  Sales,  35  Cyc.  531. 
Of  Indemnity  in  Actions  Relating  to  and  on  Lost  Instruments,  see  Lost 
Instruments,  25  Cyc.  1617. 


TENDER  [38  CycJ     131 

For  Matters  Relating  to  — (continued) 
Tender  —  (continvsd) 
Of  Insurance  Premium  or  Assessment  to  Prevent  Forfeiture,   see  Fire 

Insurance,  19  Cyc.  776;  Life  Insurance,  25  Cyc.  841;  Mutual  Bene- 
fit Insurance,  29  Cyc.  178. 
Of  Issue",  see  Pleading,  31  Cyc.  672. 
Of  Judgment  Affecting  Right  of  Extra  Allowance  of  Costs,  see  Costs, 

11  Cyc.  140. 
Of  Juror: 

As  Waiver  of  Right  to  Object  or  Challenge,  see  Juries,  24  Cyc.  322. 

Peremptory.  Challenge  After,  see  Juries,  24  Cyc.  364. 
Of  Money  or  Other  Performance  of  Obligation  as  Condition  Precedent  to 

Replevin,  see  Replevin,  34  Cyc.  1402. 
Of  Part  Payment,  see  Frauds,  Statute  of,  20  Cyc.  252. 
Of  Payment  of: 

Distributive  Share,  see  Executors  and  Administrators,  18  Cyc.  623. 

Judgment  as  Satisfaction  Thereof,  see  Judgments,  23  Cyc.  1466. 

Mortgage  Debt,  see  Chattel  Mortgages,   7  Cyc.  67;  Mortgages,  27 
Cyc.  1406. 

Negotiable  Instrument,  see  Commercial  Paper,  7  Cyc.  1017. 

Price  of  Goods  Sold,  Effect  as  to  Transfer  of  Title,  see  Sales,  35  Cyc.  331. 
Of  Performance  as  Condition  Precedent  to  Action  by: 

Buyer  of  Goods  For  Breach  of  Contract,  see  Sales,  35  Cyc.  619. 

Buyer  of  Goods  to  Recover  Price  Paid,  see  Sales,  35  Cyc.  607. 

Seller  of  Goods  For  Price  or  Value  Thereof,  see  Sales,  35  Cyc.  531. 
Of  Performance  by  Buyer  of  Goods,  Allegations  in  Declaration,  Complaint, 

or  Petition  in  Action  For  Breach  of  Contract,  see  Sales,  35  Cyc.  624. 
Of  Performance  of: 

Agreement  of  Accord,  see  Accord  and  Satisfaction,  1  Cyc.  314,  315. 

Contract  For  Services  as  Condition  Precedent  to  Action  by  Servant  For 
Wrongful  Discharge,  see  Master  and  Servant,  26  Cyc.  997. 

Services  bv  Servant,  see  Master  and  Servant,  26  Cyc.  1018. 
Of  Price  of : " 

Goods  Sold,  see  Sales,  35  Cyc.  271. 

Land  Sold,  see  Vendor  and  Purchaser. 
Of  Principal,  Suspension  of  Interest  by,  see  Interest,  22  Cyc.  1555. 
Of  Property  Alleged  to  Have  Been  Converted,  see  Trover  and  Conversion. 
Of  Purchase-Money  For  Goods  Sold  Conditionally,  see  Sales,  35  Cyc.  671. 
Of  Refunding  Bond  as  Condition  Precedent  to  Action  oh  Administration 

Bond,  see  Executors  and  Administrators,  18  Cyc.  1286. 
Of  Rent,  see  Landlord  and  Tenant,  24  Cyc.  1191. 
Of  Services  of  Pilot,  see  Pilots,  30  Cyc.  1615. 
Of  Taxes: 

As  Discharging  Lien,  see  Taxation,  37  Cyc.  1148. 

As  Prerequisite  to  Injunction  or  Other  Relief  Against  Assessment,  see 
Taxation,  37  Cyc.  1271. 

Or  Purchase-Money  as  Condition  Precedent  to  Attack  on  Tax  Title,  see 
Taxation,  37  Cyc.  1496. 
Of  Witness'  Fees  and  Expenses  on  Service  of  Subpoena,  see  Witnesses. 

I.  DEFINITION. 

Tender  is  an  offer  to  perform  a  contract,  or  to  pay  money,  coupled  with  a 
present  ability  to  do  the  act.^     It  imports,  not  merely  the  readiness  and  the 

1.  Cockrill  v.  Kirkpatriek,  9  Mo.  697,  704.      the  debtor  to  discharge  himself  from  his  ob- 
Other  definitions  are:      "A  means  given  to      ligation,  bv  placing  the  thing  to  be  delivered 

[I] 


132     [38  Cye.J 


TENDER 


ability  to  pay  or  perform  at  the  time  and  place  mentioned  in  the  contract,  but 
also  the  actual  production  of  the  thing  to  be  paid  or  delivered  over,  and  an  offer 
of  it  to  the  person  to  whom  the  tender  is  to  be  made;  ^  and  the  act  of  tender  must 
be  such  that  it  needs  only  acceptance  by  the  one  to  whom  it  is  made  to  complete 
the  transaction.  It  is  the  act  of  one  party  in  offering  that  which  he  admits  to  be 
due  and  owing,  but  which  does  not  meet  the  approval  of  the  other  party,  and 
therefore  is  not  accepted  and  appropriated  by  him  in  satisfaction  of  the  demand.' 
The  term  therefore  implies  a  refusal.* 

11.  Necessity  or  Availability. 

A.  Necessity.  Where  acts  to  be  performed  by  the  parties  to  a  contract 
are  mutual  and  dependent,  or  where  the  existence  of  a  right  in  one  claiming  it  is 
dependent  upon  the  performance  of  duties  on  his  part,  as  by  the  payment  of 
money  or  .delivery  of  goods,  tender  of  performance  by  him  is  necessary  to  enable 
him  to  sue  to  enforce  the  right.^ 


at  the  risk  of  the  creditor.''  Smith  v.  Rich- 
ardson,  11  Rob.    (La.)    516,  520. 

"An  offer  to  pay  a  debt  or  to  perform  a 
duty."     9  Bacon  Abr.  tit.  "  Tender." 

"An  offer  by  a  debtor  to  his  creditor  of  tlie 
amount  of  the  debt."  Rapalje  &  L.  L.  Diet. 
[quoted  in  Salinas  v.  Ellis,  26  S.  C.  337,  344, 
2  S.  E.  121]. 

"  The  offer  of  a  sum  of  money  in  satisfac- 
tion of  a  debt  or  claim  by  producing  and 
showing  the  amount  to  the  creditor,  or  party 
claiming  and  expressing  verbally  a  willing- 
ness to  pay  it."  Tompkins  v.  Batie,  11 
Nebr.  147,  152,  7  N.  W.  747,  38  Am.  Rep.  361 
[citing  Worcester  Diet.]. 

"An  offer  to  perform  an  act  which  the 
partv  offering  is  bound  to  perform."  Mc- 
Claiii  V.  Batton,  50  W.  Va.  121,  130,  40  S.  E. 
509. 

As  applicable  to  the  case  of  mutual  and 
concurrent  promises,  the  word  "  tender  "  does 
not  mean  the  same  kind  of  offer  as  when  it 
is  used  in  reference  to  the  payment  or  offer 
to  pay  an  ordinary  debt  due  in  money,  where 
the  money  is  offered  to  the  creditor  who  is 
entitled  to  receive  it  and  nothing  further  re- 
mains to  be  done,  and  the  transaction  is 
completed  and  ended;  but  it  only  means  a 
readiness  and  willingness,  accompanied  with 
an  ability  on  the  part  of  one  of  the  parties, 
to  do  the  acts  which  the  agreement  requires 
him  to  perform,  provided  the  other  will  con- 
currently do  the  things  which  he  is  required 
by  it  to  do,  and  a  notice  by  the  former  to 
the  latter  of  such  readiness.  Such  readi- 
ness, ability,  and  notice  are  sufficient  evi- 
dence of,  and  indeed  imply,  an  offer  or  ten- 
der in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  term.  It 
is  not  an  absolute  unconditional  offer  to  do 
or  transfer  anything  at  all  events,  but  it  is, 
in  its  nature,  conditional  only,  and  depend- 
ent on,  and  to  be  performed  only  in  case  of, 
the  readiness  of  the  other  party  to  perform 
his  part  of  the  agreement.  Smith  v.  Lewis, 
26  Conn.  110,  119  [quoted  in  Clark  v.  Weis, 
87  111.  438,  441,  29  Am.  Rep.  60  (citing  as 
illustrations  Smith  v.  Lamb,  26  111.  396,  79 
Am.  Dec.  381;  Hough  v.  Rawson,  17  111. 
588)]. 

2.  Holmes  v.  Holmes,  12  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
137,  144  [affirmed  in  9  N.  Y.  525]. 

P] 


The  term  imports  more  than  a  mere  offer, 
however,  for  there  may  be  an  offer  without 
a  tender.  Sewell  v.  Willcox,  5  Rob.  (La.) 
83.     See  infra,  II,  B,  2,  4. 

3.  Barker  v.  Brink,  5  Iowa  481,  484. 

4.  Mohn  V.  Stoner,  11  Iowa  30,  31;  Barker 
i:  Brink,  5  Iowa  481,  484. 

Payment  distinguished. —  Payment  implies 
an  acceptance  and  appropriation  of  that 
which  is  offered  by  one  party  to  the  other; 
whereas  tender  is  the  act  of  one  party,  in 
offering  that  which  he  admits  to  be  due  and 
owing,  but  which  is  not  accepted  by  the 
creditor.  The  tender  does  not  discharge  or 
satisfy  the  debt,  whereas  payment  does 
Barker  v.  Brink,  5  Iowa  481,  484. 

Payment  into  court  distinguished. —  The 
payment  of  money  into  court,  under  order, 
is  more  than  a  simple  tender.  A  tender 
is  an  offer  to  pay  by  the  debtor  before 
suit,  and  cannot  be  made  after  suit  brought. 
It  is  purely  ex  parte.  If  it  is  not  accepted 
the  debtor  must  retain  his  money,  and  if 
established  on  plea,  the  only  effect  is  to  stop 
interest  thenceforward  on  the  amount  ten- 
dered. But  a  payment  into  court  is  different. 
It  is  not  ex  parte,  but  done  by  order  of  the 
court,  which  represents  both  parties,  and 
whose  orders  bind  plaintiff  as  well  as  de- 
fendant. Black  V.  Rose,  14  S.  C.  274,  277 
[quoted  in  Salinas  v.  Ellis,  26  S.  C.  337,  345, 
2  S.  E.  121]. 

5.  Colorado.  —  People  v.  Henderson,  12 
Colo.  369,  21  Pac.  144;  Wason  v.  Major,  10 
Colo.  App.   181,  50  Pac.  741. 

Illinois. —  Briscoe   v.   Allison,   43   111.   291. 

Indiana. — Bundy  v.  Summerland,  142  Ind. 
92,  41  N.  E.  322;  Smith  v.  Rude  Bros.  Mfg. 
Co.,  131  Ind.  150,  30  N.  E.  947;  Hyland  v. 
Central  Iron  Co.,  129  Ind.  68,  28  N.  E.  308, 
13  L.  R.  A.  515;  Hyland  f.  Brazil  Block  Coal 
Co.,  128  Ind.  335,  26  N.  E.  672;  Logansport 
V.  Case,  124  Ind.  254,  24  N.  E.  88 ;  Morrison 
t:  Jacoby,  114  Ind.  84,  14  N.  E.  546,  15  N.  E. 
806 ;  South  Bend  t\  Notre  Dame,  69  Ind.  344. 

Iowa. —  Morrison  v.  Hershire,  32  Iowa  271. 

Kansas. —  Garnett  Bank  v.  Ferris,  55  Kan. 
120,  39  Pac.  1042;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Atchison  County,  54  Kan.  781,  39  Pac.  1039; 
Wilson  r.  Longendyke,  32  Kan.  267,  4  Pac. 
361;  Smith  v.  Woodleaf,  21  Kan.  717;  Haga- 


TENDER 


[38  Cye.]     133 


B.  Demands  Upon  Which  Tender  May  Be  Made.  At  common  law, 
wherever  there  is  a  debt  or  duty  due  and  the  thing  due  is  either  certain,  or  cap- 
able of  being  made  so  by  mere  computation,'  or  where  a  given  sum  in  money  is 
to  be  paid  in  specific  articles,  or  where  payment  is  to  be  made  in  specific  articles 
or  services  at  a  stipulated  rate,'  a  tender  of  the  debt  or  duty  may  be  made;  and 
a  tender  may  also  be  made  where  the  damages  have  been  liquidated  by  an  award,' 
and  where  the  damages,  in  case  plaintiff  establishes  a  right  to  any  damages,  can 
be  merely  nominal,  as  far  as  the  damages  are  concerned  a  judicial  inquiry  is 
entirely  unnecessary,  and  a  tender  of  such  damages  may  be  made."  But  at 
common  law  a  tender  is  not  allowed  where  the  amount  of  the  compensation  is 
unliquidated,  whether  the  right  to  the  compensation  is  based  upon  a  breach 
of  a  contract,  or  is  one  arising  out  of  a  tort,^°    This  rule  has  been  changed  by 


man  v.  Cloud  County  Com'rs,  19  Kan.  394; 
Lawrence  v.  Killam,  11  Kan.  499. 

Kentucky. —  Thompson  v.  Lexington,  104 
Ky.  165,  46  S.  W.  481,  20  Ky.  L.  Rep.  457. 

Louisiana. —  Bryant  i:  Stothart,  46  La. 
Ann.  485,  15  So.  76. 

Maine. —  Bisbee  v.  Ham,  47  Me.  543. 

Maryland. —  Dentzel  v.  City,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
90  Md  434,  45  Atl.  201;  Allegany  County 
V.  Union  Min    Co.,  61  Md.  545. 

Massachusetts.  —  Mansfield  v.  Hodgdon, 
147  Mass.  304,  17  N.  E.  644;  Thurston  v. 
Blanchard,  22  Pick.  18,  33  Am.  Dec.  700; 
Conner  v.  Henderson,  15  Mass.  319,  8  Am. 
Dec.   103. 

Michigan.  —  Tisdale  v.  Auditor-Gen.,  85 
Mich  261,  48  N.  W.  568;  Albany,  etc.,  Min. 
Co  V.  Auditor-Gen.,  37  Mich.  391;  Pillsbury 
f.  Humphrey,  26  Mich.  245;  Merrill  v. 
Humphrey,  24  Mich.  170;  Conway  v.  Wa- 
verly  Tp.  Bd.,  15  Mich.  257. 

Mississippi. —  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mose- 
ley,  52  Miss.   127. 

tievo  York. — McMichael  v.  Kilmer,  76  N.  Y. 
36;  Nelson  v.  Plimpton  Fireproof  Elevating 
Co.,  55  N.  Y.  480;  Dunham  v.  Pettee,  8  N.  Y. 
508;  Tonge  v.  Newell,  16  N.  Y.  App.  Div. 
500,  44  N.  Y.  Suppl.  906;  Anderson  v.  Sher- 
wood, 56  Barb.  66;  Crist  v.  Armour,  34  Barb. 
378;  Porter  v.  Rose,  12  Johns.  209,  7  Am. 
Dec.  306.  See  also  Allen  v.  Corby,  59  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  1,  69  N.  Y.  Suppl.  7. 

North  Dakota. — Douglas  v.  Fargo,  13  N.  D. 
467,  101  N.  W.  919. 

Oklahoma. —  State  Nat.  Bank  v.  Carson, 
(1897)    50   Pac.   990. 

Texas. —  Schloss  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
85  Tex.  601,  22  S.  W.  1041;  McPherson  v. 
Johnson,  69  Tex.  484,  6  S.  W.  798;  Murray 
V.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Tex.  407,  51  Am.  Rep. 
650;  Scogins  v.  Perry,  46  Tex.  Ill;  De  la 
Garza  v.  Booth,  28  Tex.  478,  91  Am.  Dec. 
328;  De  Witt  v.  Dunn,  15  Tex.  106. 

Wisconsin. — ^Wisconsin  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Lin- 
coln County,  67  Wis.  478,  30  N.  W.  619. 

United  fitates. — ^Albuquerque  Nat.  Bank  v. 
Perea,  147  U.  S.  87,  13  S.  Ct.  194,  37  L.  ed. 
91;  German  Nat.  Bank  v.  Kimball,  103  U.  S. 
732,  26  L.  ed.  469;  Gay  v.  Alter,  102  U.  S. 
79,  26  L.  ed.  48. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit./ "  Tender,"  §  5. 

6.  Green  v.  Shurtliff,  19  Vt.  592;  Solomon 
V.  Bewicke,  2  Taunt.  317. 

A  tender  may  be  pleaded  in  an  action 
upon  a  bare  covenant   for  the   payment  of 


money.  .Johnson  v.  Clay,  1  Moore  C.  P.  200, 
7  Taunt.  486,  2  E.  C.  L.  459. 

7.  Ferguson  v.  Hogan,  25  Minn.   135. 

8.  Taylor  v.  Brooklyn  El.  R.  Co.,  7  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  625  [afprmed  in  119  N.  Y.  561,  23 
N.  E.  1106]. 

9.  Cernahan  v.  Chrisler,  107  Wis.  645,  83 
N.  W.  778. 

10.  Colorado. —  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Harp,   6   Colo.   420. 

ZZiijiois.— Gregory  v.  Wells,  62  111.  232; 
Cilley  V.  Hawkins,  48  111.  308 ;  Bock  v.  Wei- 
gant,  5  111.  App.  643. 

Massachusetts.— liavrrence  v.  GifiFord,  17 
Pick.   366. 

Missouri. —  Joyner  v.  Bentley,  21  Mo.  App. 
26. 

Pennsylvania. —  Roberts  v.  Beatty,  2  Penr. 
&  W.  63,  21  Am.  Dec.  410. 

Texas. —  Breen  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  SO 
Tex.  43.  , 

Vermont. —  McDaniels  v.  Rutland  Bank, 
29  Vt.  230,  70  Am.  Dec.  406 ;  Green  v.  Shurt- 
liflF,  19  Vt.  592. 

England. — Davys  v.  Richardson,  21  Q.  B.  D. 
202,  57  L.  J.  Q.  B.  409,  59  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
765,  36  Wklv.  Rep.  728;  Dearies  v.  Barrett, 

2  A.  &  E.  82,  3  Dowl.  P.  C.  13,  4  N.  &  M.  200, 
29  E.  C.  L.  58,  111  Eng.  Reprint  32. 

See  45   Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tender,"  §  3. 

Illustrations. — So  a  tender  cannot  be  made 
of  a  sum  as  compensation  for  the  breach  of 
a  contract  to  lease  land  (Cilley  v.  Hawkins, 
48  111.  308)  ;  for  the  sale  of  land,  or  to  make 
repairs    (Dearies  v.   Barrett,   2  A.   &  E.  82, 

3  Dowl.  P.  C.  13,  4  N.  &  M.  200,  29  E.  C.  L. 
58,  111  Eng.  Reprint  32];  or  for  the  breach 
of  a  contract  of  marriage,  or  of  a  bond,  or, 
in  short,  of  anything  save  the  payment  of 
a  definite  sum  of  money,  where, .  after  the 
breach,  the  situation  of  the  parties  or  the 
value  of  the  thing  or  duty  is  uncertain,  or 
has  changed  or  is  subject  to  a  change  (see 
Green   v.    Shurtliff,    19   Vt.   592). 

After  a  breach  of  contract  to  deliver  a 
given  quantity  of  specific  articles,  unless  the 
damages  are  capable  of  being  reduced  to  a 
certainty  by  computation,  a  tender  cannot 
be  made,  either  of  the  articles  or  of  money 
as  damages.     Day  v.  Lafferty,  4  Ark.  450. 

A  promissory  note  payable  in  "  current 
bank  notes  "  ia  not  a  contract  to  pay  money, 
and  after  a  breach,  the  amount  due  being 
indefinite,  a  tender  cannot  be  made.  See 
McDowell  V.  Keller,  4  Coldw.    (Tenn.)    258. 

[II.  B] 


134:     [38  Cye.] 


TENDER 


statute  in  many  jurisdictions;  the  general  effect  of  which  is  to  permit  defendant 
to  relieve  himself  from  liability  for  costs  in  an  action  for  unliquidated  damages  by 
tendering  sufficient  amends  for  the  injury  complained  of." 

C.  When  Failure  to  Make  Tender  Excused  or  Waived.    A  formal 
tender  is  .unnecessary  if  the  party  to  whom  performance  is  due  be  absent  from . 
the  place  of  performance,  in  those  cases  where  his  presence  is  necessary;  "  nor 
is' a  formal  tender  necessary  if,  at  the  time  for  performance,  the  party  to  whom 
performance  is  due  fails  "  or  refuses  "  to  perform  on  his  part,  unless  a  request 


11.  See  the  statutes  of  the  several  states. 
And   see   the   following   cases: 

Colorado. —  Leis  v.  Hodgson,  1  Colo.  393. 

Illinois. —  Frantz  v.  Rose,  89  111.  590  (con- 
struing Rev.  St.  (1874)  c.  79,  §  51);  Dun- 
bar V.  Be  Boer,  44  111.  App.  615;  Beach  v. 
Jeffrey,   1   111.   App.   283. 

Maine. —  Brown  v.  Neal,  36  Me.  407,  con- 
struing Rev.  St.  c.  115,  §  22,  as  amended. 

Massachusetts.  —  Viall  v.  Carpenter,  16 
Gray  285,  construing  Rev.  St.  u.  105,  §  12. 

New  York. —  Clement  v.  New  York  Cent., 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  N.  Y.  Suppl.  601  (construing 
Code  Civ.  Proc.  §  731);  Clark  v.  Hallock, 
16  Wend.  607;  Slack  v.  Brown,  13  Wend. 
390;  People  v.  Sternburg,  1  Den.  635  (con- 
struing 2  Rev.  St.   §  21). 

Fermoret.— Green  v.  Shurtliff,  19  Vt.  592; 
Hart  i;.  Skinner,  16  Vt.  138,  42  Am.  Dec. 
500. 

See  also  Costs,  11  Cyc.  71  e*  seq. 

Such  statutes  are  strictly  construed,  being 
in  derogation  of  the  common  law.  See  Law- 
rence V.  Giflford,  17  Pick.  (Mass.)  366;  Joy- 
ner  v.  Bentley,  21  Mo.  App.  26.  Thus  a 
statute  allowing  a  tender  of  amends  where  a 
trespass  is  committed  through  negligence  or 
mistake  was  held  not  to  apply  where  the 
entry  upon  the  land  was  made  in  pursuance 
of  defective  proceedings  for  laying  out  a  road 
(Brown  v.  Neal,  36  Me.  407.  See  also  Viall 
V.  Carpenter,  16  Gray  (Mass.)  285),  and 
conversion  for  the  wrongful  delivery  of 
goods  was  held  not  to  fall  within  the  stat- 
utes authorizing  a  tender  of  "  damages  for 
a  casual  or  involuntary  injury  to  property." 
Clement  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9 
N.  Y.  Suppl.  601. 

12.  Lehman  v.  Collins,  69  Ala.  127;  Smith 
■V.  Ryan,  88  Ky.  636,  11  S.  W.  647,  11  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  128;  Southworth  v.  Smith,  7  Gush. 
(Mass.)  391 ;  Gilmore  v.  Holt,  4  Pick.  (Mass.) 
258;  Hale  v.  Patton,  60  N.  Y.  233,  19  Am. 
Rep.  168;  Houbie  r.  Volkening,  49  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)  169;  Noyes  v.  Clark,  7  Paige  (N.  Y.) 
179,  32  Am.  Dec.  620.  But  see  Crawford  v. 
Paine,  19  Iowa  172,  holding  that  the  absence 
of  the  creditor  from  the  state  was  no  excuse 
for  the  failure  to  tender  payment,  inasmuch 
as  under  Rev.  St.  §  1816,  a  debtor  may  make 
a  tender  by  letter. 

But  ignorance  of  the  creditor's  place  of  res- 
idence is  no  excuse  for  not  making  a  tender. 
Samuel  v.  Allen,  98  Cal.  406,  33  Pac.  273; 
Sage  v.  Ranney,  2  Wend.   (N.  Y.)   532. 

It  is  the  debtor's  duty  to  make  inquiries 
for  the  creditor  of  those  most  likely  to  know 
his  whereabouts.  Lehman  v.  Moore,  93  Ala. 
186,  9  So.  590;  Bancroft  v.  Sawin,  143  Mass. 
144,  9  N.  E.  539. 

[II,  B] 


13.  Allen  v.  Pennell,  51  Iowa  537,  2  N.  W. 
385. 

14.  Alabama. —  Root  f.  Johnson,  99  Ala. 
90,  10  So.  293 ;  Henry  v.  Allen,  93  Ala.  197, 
9  So.  579 ;  McKleroy  v.  Tulane,  34  Ala.  78. 

California.— C\ea.Ty  v.  Folger,  (1893)  33 
Pac.  877;  Sheplar  v.  Green,  96  Cal.  218,  31 
Pac.  42. 

Colorado. —  Montelius  v.  Atherton,  6  Colo. 
224. 

Connecticut. —  Ashburn  l'.  Poulter,  35  Conn. 
553. 

Illinois. —  Scott  v.  Beach,  172  111.  273,  50 
N.  E.  196;  Dulin  v.  Prince,  124  111.  76,  16 
N.  E.  242;  Lyman  v.  Gedney,  114  111.  388, 
29  N.  E.  282,  55  Am.  Rep.  871 ;  Engesette  v. 
McGilvray,  63  111.  App.  461 ;  Nathan  i\  Reh- 
kopf,  57  111.  App.  212;  Bucklen  v.  HaSterlik, 
51  111.  App.   132. 

Indiana. —  Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Harris, 
120  Ind.  73,  21  N.  E.  340,  16  Am.  St.  Rep. 
315,  7  L.  R.  A.  214;  Blair  v.  Hamilton,  48 
Ind.  32. 

loioa. — ^Veeder  v.  McMurray,  70  Iowa  118, 
29  N.  W.  818;  Hopwood  f.  Corbin,  63  Iowa 
218,  18  N.  W.  911;  Williams  v.  Triplett,  3 
Iowa  518. 

Kansas. —  Chinn  v.  Bretches,  42  Kan.  316, 
22  Pac.  426;  Thompson  v.  Warner,  31  Kan. 
533,    3   Pac.    339. 

Kentucky. —  Tyler  v.  Onzts,  93  Ky.  331,  20 
S.  W.  256,  14  Ky.  L.  Rep.  321;  Stapp  v. 
Phelps,  7  Dana  296;  Dorsey  v.  Barbee,  Litt. 
Sel.  Cas.  204,  12  Am.  Dec.  296;  Tibbs  v. 
Timberlake,  4  Litt.  12;  Dorsey  v.  Cock,  4 
Bibb  45. 

Louisiana. —  Sonia  Cotton  Oil  Co.  v.  The 
Red  River,  106  La.  42,  30  So.  303,  87  Am.  St. 
Rep.  293;  Ware  v.  Berlin,  43  La.  Ann.  534, 
9  So.  490. 

Maine. —  Dinsmore  v.  Savage,  68  Me.  191; 
Mattocks  f.  Young,  66  Me.  459. 

Massachusetts.  —  Murray  v.  Mayo,  157 
Mass.  248.  31  N.  E.  1063;  Gilmore  v.  Holt, 
4  Pick.  258. 

Michiqan. —  Moore  v.  Smith,  95  Mich.  71, 
54  N.  W.  701;  Lacy  v.  Wilson,  24  Mich. 
479. 

Minnesota.  —  Vaughan  v.  McCarthy,  59 
Minn.  199,  60  N.  W.  1075;  Long  v.  Miller, 
46  Minn.  13,  48  N.  W.  409;  Brown  v.  Eaton, 
21  Minn.  409 ;  Gill  r.  Newell,  13  Minn.  462. 

Missouri. —  Whelan  i\  Reilly,  61  Mo.  565; 
Deichmann  v.  Deichmann,  49  Mo.  107 ;  Har- 
wood  V.  Diemer,  41  Mo.  App.  48;  MacDonald 
V.  Wolflf,  40  Mo.  App.  302 ;  McManus  v.  Greg- 
ory, 16  Mo.  App.  375. 

Nebraska. —  Graham  v.  Frazier,  49  Nebr. 
90,  68  N.  W.  367 :  Smith  v.  Gibson,  25  Nebr. 
511,  41  N.  W.  360. 


TENDER 


[38  Cyc]     135 


which  he  has  no  right  to  make  is  complied  with,"  or  if  he  is  unable  to  perform/' 
or  does  or  suffers  anything  to  be  done  with  the  thing  to  be  delivered  by  him  which 
renders  certain  a  failure  of  performance  on  his  part  when  the  day  arrives.''  Simi- 
larly a  tender  is  waived  where  the  tenderee  makes  any  declaration  which  amounts 
to  a  repudiation  of  the  contract,  or  takes  any  position  which  would  render  a 
tender,  so  long  as  the  position  taken  by  him  is  maintained,  a  vain  and  idle  cere- 
mony; "  as  where  he  expressly  declares  that  he  wUl  not  accept  the  tender  if  it  is 


Feio  yorfc.— Blewett  v.  Baker,  58  N.  Y. 
611;  Morange  v.  Morris,  3  Abb.  Dec.  314,  3 
Keyes  48,  32  How.  Pr.  178;  Simonson  v. 
Lauck,  105  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  82,  93  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  965;  Allen  v.  Corby,  59  N.  Y.  App. 
Div.  1,  69  N.  Y.  Suppl.  7 ;  Cleveland  f.  Eoth- 
well,  54  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  14,  66  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
241;  Anderson  x.  Sherwood,  56  Barb.  66; 
Stone  V.  Sprague,  20  Barb.  509;  Zeitlin  V. 
Arkaway,  26  Misc.  761,  56  N.  Y.  Suppl.  1058. 

Oregon. —  Clarno  V:  Grayson,  30  Oreg.  Ill, 
46  Pac.  426. 

Rhode  Island. —  Lee  r.  Stone,  21  K.  I.  123, 
42  Atl.  717. 

South  Dakota. —  McPherson  v.  Fargo,  10 
S.  D.  611,  74  N.  W.  1057,  66  Am.  St.  Rep. 
723;  Brace  v.  Doble,  3  S.  D.  110,  52  N.  W. 
586. 

Tennessee. —  Bradford  v.  Foster,  87  Tenn. 

4,  9  S.  W.  195. 

Texas. —  Bluntzer  r.  Dewees,  79  Tex.  272, 
15  S.  W.  29 ;  Woldert  v.  Arledge,  4  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  692,  23  S.  W.  1052;  Bessling  v.  Hoyle, 
1  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  287. 

Virginia. —  White  v.  Dobson,  17  Gratt.  262. 

West  Virginia. —  Poling  v.  Parsons,  38 
W.  Va.  80,  18  S.  E.  379. 

Wisconsin. —  Maxon  v.  Gates,  112  Wis.  198, 
88  N.  W.  54;  Hoffman  v.  Van  Diemen,  62 
Wis.  362,  21  N.  W.  542;  Wright  V.  Young, 
6  Wis.  127,  70  Am.  Dec.  453. 

United  States. —  Pollock  v.  Brainard,  26 
Fed.  732 ;  Calhoun  t:  Vechio,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2,310,  3  Wash.  165. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tender,"  §§  6,  7. 

Time  of  refusal. —  The  refusal  must  be  at 
or  before  the  time  of  performance,  to  con- 
stitute a  waiver.  Columbia  Bank  v.  Hagner, 
1  Pet.  (U.  S.)  455,  7  L.  ed.  219.  See  also 
Newman  r.  Baker,  10  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)   187. 

15.  Ford    V.    Stroud,    150    N.    C.    362,    64 

5.  E.  1;  Amsden  v.  Atwood,  68  Vt.  322,  35 
Atl.  311;  Dickinson  i\  Dutcher,  Brayt.  (Vt.) 
104;  Jones  v.  Tarlton,  1  Dowl.  P.  C.  N.  S. 
625,  6  Jur.  348,  11  L.  J.  Exch.  267,  9 
M.  &  W.  675. 

As  ty  refusing,  until  an  unlawful  claim  is 
paid,  to  receive  any  part  of  tender.  North- 
ern Colorado  Irr.  Co.  v.  Richards,  22  Colo. 
450,  45  Pac.  423  (where  the  tenderee  de- 
manded the  payment  of  certain  illegal  royal- 
ties) ;  Gorham  v.  Farson,  119  111.  425,  10 
N.  E.  1 ;  Indiana  Bond  Co.  v.  Jameson,  24 
Ind.  App.  8,  56  N.  E..  37 ;  Hamilton  v.  Mc- 
Laughlin,  145  Mass.  20,  12  N.  E.  424 ;  Hoyt 
V.  Sprague,  61  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  497.  But  see 
Bolton  V.  Gifford,  45  Tex.  Civ.  App.  140,  100 
S.  W.  210. 

16.  Indiana. —  Nesbit  v.  Miller,  125  Ind. 
106,  25  N.  E.  US, 

Iowa. —  Auxier  v.  Taylor,  102  Iowa  673,  72 
N.  W.  291. 


Massachusetts. —  Lowe  v.  Harwood,  139 
Mass.  133,  29  N.  E.  538. 

Minnesota. — Taylor  v.  Read,  19  Minn.  372; 
Bennett  f.  Phelps,  12  Minn.  326. 

New  York. —  Baumann  v.  Plnckney,  118 
N.  Y.  604,  23  N.  E.  916;  Hartley  v.  James, 
50  N.  Y.  38;  Delavan  v.  Duncan,  49  N.  Y. 
485;  Bunge  v.  Koop,  48  N.  Y.  225,  8  Am. 
Rep.  546;  Morange  v.  Morris,  3  Abb.  Dec. 
314,  3  Keyes  48,  32  How.  Pr.  178;  Beier  v. 
Spaulding,  92  Hun  388,  36  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
1056;  Whitaker  v.  Burrows,  71  Hun  478,  24 
N.  Y.  Suppl.  1011;  Karker  v.  Haverly,  50 
Barb.  79;  Wheaton  v.  Baker,  14  Barb.  594; 
Marshall  v.  Wenninger,  20  Misc.  527,  46 
N.  Y.  Suppl.  670;  Baker  v.  Robbins,  2  Den. 
136;  Foote  v.  West;  1  Den.  544;  Lawrence 
V.  Taylor,  5  Hill  107. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tender,"  §§  6,  7. 

17.  Iowa. —  Auxier  v.  Taylor,  102  Iowa 
673,  72  N.  W.  291. 

Massachusetts. —  Lowe  v.  Harwood,  139 
Mass.  133,  29  N.  E.  538. 

Minnesota. —  Wyvell  v.  Jones,  37  Minn.  68, 
33  N.  W.  43;  Bennett  v.  Phelps,  12  Minn. 
326. 

New  York. —  Davis  v.  Van  Wyck,  64  Hun 
186,  18  N.  Y.  Suppl.  885. 

Pennsylvania. —  Scott  v.  Patterson,  1  Pa. 
Dist.  603. 

18.  Georgia. —  Ansley  v.  Hightower,  120 
Ga.  719,  48  S.  E.  197. 

Indiana. —  Blair  v.  Hamilton,   48  Ind.   32. 

Iowa. —  Williams  v.   Triplett,   3  Iowa  518. 

Kansas. —  Piazzek  v.  Harman,  79  Kan.  855, 
98  Pac.  771. 

Kentucky. —  Dorsey  v.  Barbee,  Litt.  Sel. 
Cas.  204,  12  Am.  Dec.  296;  Dorsey  v.  Cock, 
4  Bibb  45. 

Louisiana. —  State  v.  Webstei-  Parish  Po- 
lice Jury,  120  La.  163,  45  So.  47,  124  Am. 
St.  Rep.  430,  14  L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  794. 

Maine. —  Duffy  v.  Patten,  74  Me.  396; 
Mattocks  V.  Young,  66  Me.  459. 

Minnesota. —  Gill  v.  Newell,   13  Minn.  462. 

Missouri. —  Deichmann  v.  Deichmann,  49 
Mo.  107. 

Nebraska. —  Graham  i\  Frazier,  49  Nebr. 
90,  68  N.  W.  367. 

Pennsylvania. —  Hampton  r.  Speckenagle, 
9  Serg.  &  R.  212,  11  Am.  Dec.  704. 

South  Dakota. —  McPherson  v.  Fargo,  10 
S.  D.  611,  74  S.  W.  1057,  66  Am.  St.  Rep. 
723. 

Washington. —  Weinberg  v.  Naher,  51 
Wash.  591,  99  Pac.  736,  22  L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  956. 

United  States. —  Columbia  Bank  v.  Hag- 
ner, 1  Pet.  455,  7  L.  ed.  219. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tender,"  §  48. 

The  position  taken  by  the  unwilling  party 
must  be  maintained  until  the  time  for  per- 
formance.    Scribner    t.    Schenkel,    128    Cal. 

[II,  C] 


136     [38  Cye.] 


TENDER 


made/'  or  in  any  way  obstructs  or  prevents  a  tender/"  as  by  declaring  positively 
that  nothing  is  due  him,"  by  admitting  that  a  tender  would  be  fruitless/^  by 
declaring  the  contract  to  be  at  an  end/^  or  in  a  threatening  tone  ordering  plaintiff 
off  the  premises.^*  But  in  any  case  before  it  can  be  said  that  a  formal  tender  is 
waived,  the  tenderee  must  have  placed  himself  in  such  position  as  would  make 
a  tender  an  unnecessary  act.^^  And  a  plaintiff,  before  he  can  recover  damages 
for  the  breach,  or  what  he  has  parted  with  under  the  contract,  must  show,  not 
only  the  facts  constituting  the  waiver  of  the  formal  tender,  but  that  he  was  able 
and  willing,  at  the  time  fixed,  to  perform  on  his  part,^'  except  in  those  cases  where 
a  tender  is  rendered  unnecessary  by  the  previous  declaration,  act,  or  omission 
of  the  other  party."  A  formal  technical  tender  is  not  dispensed  with  by  a  mere 
assertion,  without  more,  of  a  lien  or  claim  in  excess  of  the  actual  amount  due, 
for  a  tender  of  the  proper  sum  might  be  accepted.^*  There  cannot  be  a  waiver 
unless  the  tenderee  is  present  and  has  an  opportunity  to  object  to  the  tender,^" 
nor  can  there  be  a  waiver  when  he  is  present,  if  the  facts  are  not  disclosed  to  him.'° 


250,  60  Pac.  860;  Crist  P.  Armour,  34  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)   378. 

19.  Georgia. —  Arnold  v.  Empire  Mut. 
Annuity,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  3  Ga.  App.  685,  60 
S.  E.  470. 

Illinois. —  Gillespie  v.  Fulton  Oil,  etc.,  Co., 
236  111.  188,  86  N.  E.  219. 

Indiana. —  Blair   f.  Hamilton,  48  Ind.   32. 

loica. —  Williams   v.  Triplett,  3  Iowa  518. 

Kentucky. —  New  York  L.  Ins.  Co.  r.  Clop- 
ton,  7  Bush  179,  3  Am.  Rep.  290;  Dorsey  v. 
Barbdee,  Litt.  Sel.  Cas.  204,  12  Am.  Dee. 
296 ;  Tibbs  f.  Timberlake,  4  Litt.  12 ;  Dorsey 
V.  Cock,  4  Bibb  45. 

Maine.—  Duffy  v.  Patten,  74  Me.  396 ;  Mat- 
tocks V.  Young,  66  Me.  459. 

Maryland. —  Buel  v.  Pumphrey,  2  Md.  261, 
56  Am.  Dec.  714. 

Massachusetts. —  Oilman  v.  Gary,  198 
Mass.  318,  84  N.  E.  312. 

Michigan. —  Witt  v.  Dersham,  146  Mich. 
68,  109  N.  W.  25. 

Missouri. —  See  Austen  v.  St.  Louis  Tran- 
sit Co.,  115  Mo.  App.  146,  91  S.  W.  450. 

Neio  Jersey. —  Trenton  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Law- 
lor,  74  N.  J.  Eq.  828,  71  Atl.  234,  74  Atl. 
668. 

New  York. —  Simonson  v.  Lauck,  105  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  82,  93  N.  Y.  Suppl.  965;  Klinck 
V.  Kelly,  63  Barb.  622;  Vaupell  v.  Wood- 
ward, 2  Sandf.  Ch.  143. 

North  Carolina. — ^  Martin  v.  Fayetteville 
Bank,  131  N.  C.  121,  42  S.  E.  558. 

West  Virginia. —  Poling  v.  Parsons,  38 
W.  Va.  80,  18  S.  E.  379 ;  Koon  v.  Snodgrass, 
18  W.  Va.  320. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tender,"  §  48. 

20.  Nelson  v.  Plimpton  Fireproof  El.  Co., 
55  N.  Y.  480),  Traver  v.  Halsted,  23  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  66;  Franohot  v.  Leach,  5  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 
506 ;  Coit  i:  Ambergate,  7  A.  &  E.  N.  S.  127 ; 
Hochster  v.  De  la  Tour,  2  E.  &  B.  678,  17 
Jur.  972,  22  L.  J.  Q.  B.  455,  1  Wkly.  Rep. 
469,  75  E.  C.  L.  678. 

As  by  refusing  to  render  account  of  what 
is  due.  Roby  «.  Skinner,  34  Me.  270;  Mc- 
Sweeney  v.  Kay,  15  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.) 
432. 

Rendering  a  false  account  will  excuse  ten- 
der. Meaher  v.  Howes,  (Me.  1887)  10  Atl. 
460. 

[II,  C] 


Declining  an  offer  of  immediate  payment 
on  an  offer  to  pay  then  or  at  a  future  time 
was  held  to  be  equivalent  to  a  tender.  U.  S. 
Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Lesser,  126  Ala.  568,  28  So. 
646. 

21.  Lacy  v.  Wilson,  24  Mich.  479. 

22.  Ronaldson,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bynum,  122  La. 
6C7,  48  So.  152 ;  Jackson  v.  Jacob,  3  Bing.  N. 
Cas.  869,  3  Hodges  219,  6  L.  J.  C.  P.  315,  5 
Scott  79,  32  E.  C.  L.  399. 

23.  Oelrichs  v.  Artz,  21  Md.  524;  Post  V. 
Garrow,  18  Nebr.  682,  26  N.  W.  580.  See 
Union  Inv.  Assoc,  v.  Geer,  64  111.  App.  648. 

24.  Williams  v.  Patrick,  177  Mass.  160,  58 
N.  E.  583. 

25.  Jewett  f.  Earle,  53  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 
349;  Sanford  v.  Savings,  etc.,  Soc,  80  Fed. 
54. 

26.  Lamar  v.  Sheppard,  84  Ga.  561,  10 
S.  E.  1084;  Nelson  v.  Plimpton  Fireproof  El. 
Co.,  55  N.  Y.  480;  Traver  v.  Halsted,.  23 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  66;  Franchot  v.  Leach,  5  Cow. 
(N.  Y.)  506;  Robison  i\  Tyson,  46  Pa.  St. 
286;  Hochster  v.  De  la  Tour,  2  E.  &  B.  678, 
17  Jur.  972,  22  L.  J.  Q.  B.  455,  1  Wkly.  Rep. 
469,  75  E.  C.  L.  678. 

27.  Lowe  V.  Harwood,  139  Mass.  133,  29 
N.  E.  538;  Brown  v.  Davis,  138  Mass.  458; 
Crist  f.  Armour,  34  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  378;  Frost 
V.  Clarkson,  7  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  24;  Lovelock  v. 
Franklin,  8  Q.  B.  371,  10  Jur.  246,  15  L.  J. 
Q.  B.  146,  55  E.  C.  L.  371;  Ford  v.  Tilev, 
6  B.  &  C.  325,  9  D.  &  R.  443,  5  L.  J.  K.  B. 
O.  S.  169,  30  Rev.  Rep.  339,  13  E.  C.  L.  154. 

28.  Loewenberg  v.  Arkansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56 
Ark.  439,  19  S.  W.  1051;  Indiana  Bond  Co. 
V.  Jameson,  24  Ind.  App.  8,  56  N.  E.  37 ;  Hoyt 
V.  Sprague,  61  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  497;  Llado  v. 
Morgan,  23  U.  C.  C.  P.  517;  McBride  v. 
Bailey,  6  U.  C.  C.  P.  523 ;  Kendal  v.  Fitzger- 
ald, 21  U.  C.  Q.  B.  585;  Buffalo,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Gordon,  16  U.  C.  Q.  B.  283. 

But  demanding  an  exorbitant  price  for  re- 
pairs done  on  a  ship  and  giving  notice  that  it 
will  not  be  surrendered  unless  such  price  be 
paid  dispenses  with  a  tender.  Watson  V. 
Pearson,  9  Jur.  N.  S.  501,  8  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
395,  11  Wkly.  Rep.  702. 

29.  Sloan  t.  Petrie,  16  111.  262. 

30.  Waldron  v.  Murphy,  40  Mich.  668. 


TENDER 


[88  Cyc]     13T 


III.  FORM,  Requisites,  and  Sufficiency. 

A.  Amount  —  l.  Rule  Stated.  Nothing  short  of  an  offer  of  everything 
that  the  creditor  is  entitled  to  receive  is  sufficient,  and  a  debtor  must  at  his  peril 
tender  the  entire  sum  due,^'  including  all  necessary  expenses  incurred  or  damages 
suffered  by  the  creditor  by  reason  of  the  default  of  the  debtor, ^^  and  a  mistake  in 
tendering  an  amount  less  than  the  sum  due  is  the  misfortune  of  the  tenderer,^' 
and  the  position  of  the  parties  remains  the  same  as  if  no  tender  had  been  made.^* 


31.  Alabama. —  Eversole  v.  Addington,  156 
Ala.  575,  46  So.  849;  Smith  v.  Anders,  21 
Ala.  782. 

Arkansas. —  Burr  v.  Daugherty,  21  Ark. 
559. 

California. —  Shafer  v.  Willis,  124  Cal.  36, 
56  Pac.  635;  San  Pedro  Lumber  Co.  v.  Rey- 
nolds, 111  Cal.  588,  44  Pac.  309. 

fjorido.— Chandler  v.  Wright,  16  Fla.  510. 

Georgia. —  Smith  v.  Pileher,  130  Ga.  350, 
60  S.  E.  1000. 

Illinois. —  Cheney  v.  Eoodhouse,  135  111. 
257,  25  N.  E.  1019  [modifying  32  111.  App. 
49]. 

Indiana. —  Bailey  v.  Troxell,  43  Ind.  432. 

loioa. —  Brandt  >".  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26 
Iowa  114.  See  also  Metropolitan  Nat.  Bank 
V.  Commercial  State  Bank,  104  Iowa  682,  74 
N.  W.  26;  McWhirter  v.  Crawford,  104  Iowa 
550,  72  N.  W.  505,  73  N.  W.  1021. 

Kansas. —  Sanford  v.  Bartholomew,  33  Kan. 
38,  5  Pac.  429. 

Kentucky. —  Haddix  v.  Wilson,  3  Bush 
523. 

Maryland. —  Baltimore  P.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Loney, 
20  Md.  20;  Fridge  v.  State,  3  Gill  &  J.  103, 
20  Am.  Dec.  463. 

Massachusetts. —  Chapin  t'.  Chapin,  (1894) 
36  N.  E.  746;  Boyden  v.  Moore,  5  Mass.  365. 

Minnesota. —  Kingsley  v.  Anderson,  103 
Minn.  510,  115  N.  W.  642,  116  N.  W.  112; 
Spoon  f.  Frambach,  83  Minn.  301,  86  N.  W. 
106;  Dickerson  v.  Hayes,  26  Minn.  100,  1 
N.  W.  83. 

Missouri. — 'Detweiler  v.  Breckenkamp,  83 
Mo.  45. 

New  Hampshire. —  Fisher  v.  Willard,  20 
N.  H.  421. 

New  York. —  Graham  v.  Linden,  50  N.  Y. 
547;  Campbell  v.  Abbott,  60  Misc.  93,  111 
N.  Y.  Suppl.  782;  Wicks  v.  London  and  Lan- 
cashire Fire  Ins.  Co.,  Ill  N.  Y.  Suppl.  65; 
Grussy  i:  Schneider,  50  How.  Pr.  134;  Mc- 
Lean V.  Walker,  10  Johns.  471. 

Ohio. —  Hoppe,  etc..  Bottling  Co.  v.  Sacks, 
11  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  3,  5  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  306. 

Pennsylvania. — ^Wolverton's  Appeal,  5  Atl. 
612;  Coleman  v.  Ross,  46  Pa.  St.  180;  Lowrie 
V.  Verner,  3  Watts  317. 

Texas. —  Henry  v.  Sansom,  (Civ.  App. 
1896)   36  S.  W.  122. 

Virginia. —  Shobe  v.  Carr,  3  Munf .  10. 

West  Virginia. —  Shank  v.  Groff,  45  W.  Va. 
543,  32  S.  E.  248. 

United  States. —  Leiteh  v.  Union  R.  Transp. 
Co.,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,224. 

England.— Dixon  v.  Clark,  5  C.  B.  365,  5 
D.  &  L.'  155,  16  L.  J.  C.  P.  237,  57  E.  C.  L. 
365. 


See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tender,"  §  21  ef  seq. 

Attorney's  fees. —  The  amount  stipulated  in 
a  note  for  attorney's  fees  in  case  of  default 
must  be  tendered  to  an  attorney  who  holds 
the  note  for  collection.  Eouyer  f.  Miller,  16 
Ind.  App.  519,  44  N.  E.  51,  45  N.  E.  674. 
But  an  attorney's  charges  need  not  be  ten- 
dered if  not  stipulated  for.  Kinton  v.  Braith- 
waite,  5  Dowl.  P.  C.  101,  2  Gale  48,  5  L.  J. 
Exch.  165,  1  M.  &  W.  310,  Tyrw.  &  G.  945. 
See  also  infra,  III,  A,  2,  note  42. 

Tender  by  or  to  agent. — Where  an  agent 
was  sent  to  tender  a  certain  sum  to  a,  cred- 
itor who  demanded  a  larger  Sum,  and  the 
agent  thereupon  offered  the  balance  at  his 
own  risk,  the  tender  was  held  good.  Read 
f.  Goldring,  2  M.  &  S.  86,  105  Eng.  Reprint 
314.  But  where  an  agent  is  sent  to  demand 
a  specific  sum  for  an  unliquidated  claim,  an 
offer  to  him  of  a  less  sum  is  not  a  valid 
tender.     Chipman  v.  Bates,  5  Vt.  143. 

A  tender  of  a  sum  actually  due  on  a  bond 
with  a  penalty,  although  less  than  tlie  pen- 
alty, is  sufficient.  Tracy  v.  Strong,  2  Conn. 
659. 

32.  Michigan. —  Stickney  v.  Parmenter,  35 
Mich.  237;  Thurber  v.  Jewett,  3  Mich. 
295. 

Minnesota. — Wyatt  v.  Quinby,  65  Minn. 
537,  68  N.  W.  109;  Gorham  v.  National  L. 
Ins.  Co.,  62  Minn.  327,  64  N.  W.  906;  Nop- 
son  V.  Horton,  20  Minn.  268;  Spencer  v. 
Levering,  8  Minn.  461. 

New  York. —  Equitable  L.  Assur.  Co.  v. 
Von  Glahn,  107  N.  Y.  637,  13  N.  E.  793; 
Hargous  v.  Lahens,  3  Sandf.  213. 

Pennsylvania. — Allen  v.  Union  Bank,  5 
Whart.  420. 

South  Carolina. —  MeClendon  v.  Wells, '  20 
S.  C.  514. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tender,"  §  21 
et  seq. 

The  insignificance  of  the  deficiency  does 
not  make  any  difference.  A  shortage  of  forty- 
one  cents  has  been  held  fatal.  Boyden  v. 
Moore,  5  Mass.  365.  So  where  the  deficiency 
was  seventy-one  cents  on  a  demand  amount- 
ing to  six  hundred  and  forty-nine  dollars  and 
forty-four  cents  the  tender  was  held  not  good. 
Wright  f.  Beherns,  39  N.  J.  L.  413. 

33.  Shuck  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Iowa 
333,  35  N.  W.  429 ;  Helphrey  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  29  Iowa  480;  Brandt  i'.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  26  Iowa  114;  Shotwell  v.  Dennman, 
1  N.  J.  L.  202;  Baker  v.  Gasque,  3  Strobh. 
(S.  C.)  25;  Patnote  v.  Sanders,  41  Vt.  66, 
98  Am.  Dec.  564. 

34.  Smith  v.  Pileher,  130  Ga.  350,  60  S.  E. 
1000. 

[Ill,  A,  1] 


138     [38  Cye.] 


TENDER 


Furthermore,  the  tenderer  must  name  the  sum  which  he  wishes  to  tender,''  unless 
perhaps  the  exact  sum  and  interest  is  tendered  so  that  the  tenderee  may  easily 
satisfy  himself  that  the  amount  is  correct.'"  Where  the  amount  due  is  within 
the  exclusive  knowledge  of  the  creditor,  and  the  creditor  on  demand  neglects  or 
refuses  to  indicate  the  correct  amount  that  is  due,  the  debtor  may  tender  so  much 
as  he  thinks  is  justly  due,  and  if  less  than  the  true  amount,  the  tender  never- 
theless will  be  good; ''  and  the  same  rule  obtains  where  the  tenderee  deprives  the 
tenderer  of  the  means  of  ascertaining  the  exact  amount  due.'' 

2.  Interest  and  Costs.  The  amount  tendered  must  be  sufficient  to  cover 
both  principal  and  interest,  if  the  obligation  upon  which  the  tender  is  made  carries 
interest;  '^  and  the  tender  must  include  interest  up  to,  and  including,  the  last 
day  of  grace;  *"  and  a  tender,  made  after  action  has  been  commenced,  in  order  to 
bar  the  rec  ivery  of  subsequent  interest  and  costs,  must  be  of  such  sum  as  wHl 
cover  the  amount  due,  with  interest  to  the  day  of  the  tender,  and  such  costs  as 
have  accrued  in  the  action  up  to  that  time/'  the  costs  to  be  included  in  the  sum 


3,5.  Knight  v.  Abbot,  30  Vt.  577;  Alex- 
ander V.  Brown,  1  C.  &  P.  288,  12  E.  C.  L. 
173.  But  see  Conway  v.  Case,  22  111.  127, 
holding  that  where  the  bag  containing  the 
money  was  thrown  upon  a  counter  and  the 
tenderee  did  not  offer  to  count  it,  the  tender 
was  sufficient  upon  the  evidence  of  the 
agent  who  made  the  offer,  to  the  effect  that 
it  was  his  belief  that  there  was  sufficient 
coin  in  the  bag  to  pay  the  amount  due. 

36.  State  v.  Spicer,  4  Houst.    (Del.)    100. 

37.  Shannon  v.  Howard  Mut.  Bldg.  Assoc, 
36  Md.  383;  Nelson  v.  Eobson,  17  Minn.  284. 

38.  Downing  v.  Plate,  90  111.  26«. 

39.  Connecticut. —  People's  Sav.  Bank  1>. 
Norwalk,  56  Conn.  547,  16  Atl.  257. 

Indiana. —  Hamar  r.  Dimmick,  14  Ind.  105. 

Louisiana. —  Louisiana  Molasses  Co.  v.  Le 
Sassier,  52  La.  Ann.  1768,  2070,  28  So.  217, 
223. 

Massachusetts. — Weld  «.  Elliot  Five  Cents 
Sav.  Bank,  158  Mass.  339,  33  N.  E.  519; 
City  Bank  v.  Cutter,  3  Pick.  414. 

New  York. — Woodworth  v.  Morris,  56  Barb. 
97;  Globe  Soap  Co.  i:  Liss,  36  Misc.  199,  73 
N.  Y.  Suppl.  153. 

South  Carolina. —  McClendon  v.  Wells,  20 
S.  C.  514. 

United  States. —  Hus  v.  Kempf,  12  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  6,943,  10  Ben.  231. 

England. —  Suse  f.  Pompe,  8  C.  B.  N.  S. 
538,  7  Jur.  N.  S.  166,  30  L.  J.  C.  P.  75,  3 
L.  T.  Eep.  N.  S.  17,  9  Wkly.  Rep.  15,  98 
E.  C.  L.  538;  Gibbs  v.  Fremont,  9  Exch.  25, 
17  Jur.  820,  22  L.  J.  Exch.  302,  1  Wkly.  Eep. 
482. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tender,''  §  21 
et  seq. 

Waiver  of  objection.— An  objection  that  in- 
terest was  not  tendered  is  waived  by  refusing 
the  tender  solely  upon  another  ground. 
Christenson  v.  Nelson,  38  Greg.  473,  63  Pac. 
64)8.  And  the  objection  that  the  sum  tendered 
did  not  include  interest  cannot  be  raised  if 
the  creditor  in  his  complaint  claimed  interest 
only  from  a  date  subsequent  to  the  tender. 
Rudulph  V.  Wagner,  36  Ala.  698. 

Usuiious  interest  need  not  be  tendered. 
Shiver  v.  Johnston,  62  Ala.  37. 

40.  Smith  v.  Merchant's,  etc.,  Bank,  14 
Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  199,  8  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  176. 

[in.  A,  I] 


41.  Alabama. —  Smith  v.  Anders,  21  Ala. 
782. 

Connecticut. —  Studwell  v.  Cooke,  38  Conn. 
549. 

Illinois. —  Sweetland  v.  Tuthill,  54  111.  215; 
McDaniel  i:  Upton,  45  111.  App.  151. 

Indiana. —  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Woodard, 
159  Ind.  541,  65  N.  E.  577. 

Iowa. — Young  v.  McWaid,  57  Iowa  lOi;  10 
N.  W.  291;  Barnes  v.  Greene,  30  Iowa  114; 
Freeman  v.  Fleming,  5  Iowa  460. 

Louisiana. —  Louisiana  Molasses  Co.  v.  Le 
Sassier,  52  La.  Ann.  2070,  28  So.  217;  Mc- 
Master  v.  Brander,  15  La.  206. 

Maine. —  Marshall  v.  Wing,  50  Me.  62. 

Massachusetts. —  Emerson  v.  Gray,  10  Gray 
351;  Whipple  v.  Newton,  17  Pick.  168;  Hamp- 
shire Manufacturers'  Bank  v.  Billings  17 
Pick.  87. 

Michigan. —  Stickney  v.  Parmenter,  35 
Mich.  237. 

Minnesota. —  Seeger  v.  Smith,  74  Minn. 
278,  77  N.  W.  3. 

New  Hampshire. —  Thurston  v.  Blaisdell,  8 
N.  H.  367. 

New  Jersey. —  State  Bank  v.  Holcomb,  7 
N.  J.  L.  193,  11  Am.  Dec.  549. 

New  York. —  Eaton  f.  Wells,  22  Hun  123 
[affirmed  in  82  N.  Y.  576]  ;  Globe  Soap  Co. 
v.  Liss,  36  Misc.  199,  73  N.  Y.  Suppl.  153; 
Bernstein  v.  Levy,  34  Misc.  772,  68  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  833;  People  v.  Banker,  8  How.  Pr. 
258;  Rockefeller  v.  Weiderwax,  3  How.  Pr. 
382;  Edwards  v.  Farmer's  F.,  etc.,  Ins.  Co, 
21  Wend.  467;  Eetan  r.  Drew,  19  Wend. 
304;  Farr  v.  Smith,  9  Wend.  33S,  24  Am. 
Dec.  162;  Hunter  v.  Le  Conte,  6  Cow.  728. 

Ohio. —  Burt  v.  Dodge,  13  Ohio  131. 

Pennsylvania. — McDowell  v.  Glass,  4  Watts 
389;   George  v.   Sunday,   1  Woodw.  364. 

South  Carolina. — Broughton  i-.  Richardson, 
2  Rich.  64;  Hinchy  v.  Foster,  3  McCord  428. 

Fermore*.— Cree  v.  Lord,  25  Vt.  498. 

United  States. —  Lichtenfels  f.  The  Enos 
B.  Phillips,  53  Fed.  153;  Hus  v.  Kempf,  12 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,943,   10  Ben.   231. 

England. — Walsh  v.  Southworth,  6  Exch. 
150,  20  L.  J.  M.  C.  165,  2  L.  M.  &  P.  91. 

Canada.—  Garforth  v.  Cairns,  9  Can.  L  J. 
N.  S.  212. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tender,"  §  26. 


TENDER 


[38  Cye.J     139 


tendered,  comprehending  everything  accrued  at  the  time  of  the  tender  or  which 
must  necessarily  be  expended  by  plaintiff  in  disposing  of  the  matter  of  record, 
and  such  other  items  as  plaintiff  would  be  entitled  to  enter  in  the  judgment.^^ 
Although  a  debtor  does  not  in  his  estimate  of  the  amount  due  include  any  interest, 
yet  if,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  he  tenders  enough  money  to  cover  the  actual  debt  and 
interest,  the  tender  is  good;  *^  and  if  a  contract  for  the  payment  of  money  at  a 
certain  time  does  not  mention  interest,  a  tender  on  the  due  day,  of  the  principal 
without  interest,  is  good." 

3.  Tender  of  More  Than  Is  Due  and  Demand  For  Change  '"^  —  a. .  In  General. 
Where  a  debtor  offers  in  payment,  as  the  sum  due,  a  larger  sum  than  is  actually 
due,  or  such  larger  sum  is  offered  in  payment  of  a  less  sum  and  he  does  not  expressly 
01  impliedly  request  any  change  to  be  returned,  the  tender  is  not  objectionable, 
foi  a  tender  of  a  greater  sum  includes  the  less  sum;  ^°  but  it  is  held  that  a 


When  an  action  is  deemed  to  be  com- 
menced see  Actions,  1  Cyc.  747. 

A  failure  upon  request  to  state  the  amount 
of  the  costs,  where  they  are  fixed  by  statute, 
will  not  excuse  a  failure  to  tender  the  full 
amount.  Willey  v.  Laraway,  64  Vt.  566,  25 
Atl.  435.  But  a  plaintiff  upon  request  is  bound 
to  furnish  information  as  to  the  costs,  where 
the  costs  incurred  are  peculiarly  within  his 
knowledge;  hut  where  defendant  with  knowl- 
edge of  the  commencement  of  the  suit  made 
no  inquiry,  it  was  held  that  plaintiff  was 
under  no  obligation  to  inform  him  that  he 
had  summoned  witnesses  Smith  v.  Wilbur, 
35  Vt.  133 

Waiver  of  claim  for  costs. —  If,  at  the  time 
of  making  a  tender  of  the  amount  of  the  debt, 
the  debtor  does  not  know  that  a,  suit  has 
been  commenced  and  the  creditor  does  not 
inform  him  of  that  fact,  nor  make  any  claim 
for  costs,  but  refuses  to  accept  the  amount 
tendered  solely  on  the  ground  that  it  is  in- 
suiEcient  to  pay  the  debt,  it  is  a  waiver  of 
all  claims  for  costs.  Jones  v.  Ames,  Smith 
(Ind.)  133;  Haskell  v.  Brewer,  11  Me.  258; 
Hull  V.  Peters,  7  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  331.  See 
Vreeland  v.  Waddell,  93  Wis.  107,  67  N.  W. 
51,  where  no  demand  was  made  for  the  ex- 
cuse of  keeping  certain  property,  and  a  tender 
of  the  debt  alone  was  held  sufficient. 

42.  Shutes  v.  Woodard,  57  Mich.  213,  23 
N.  W.  775 ;  Mjones  f.  Yellow  Medicine  County 
Bank,  45  Minn.  335,  47  N.  W.  1072;  Seelig- 
son  f.  Gifford,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1907)  lOO 
S.  W.  213;  Sorrel  v.  Gifford,  (Tex.  Civ.  App. 
1907)  100  S.  W.  212;  Bolton  v.  Gifford,  45 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  140,  100  S.  W.  210;  Strusguth 
V.  Pollard,  62  Vt.  157,  19  Atl.  228  (holding 
that  the  sum  tendered  must  include  not  only 
the  costs  accrued  but  the  costs  of  a  nonsuit)  ; 
Hoyt,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Smith,  4  Wash.  640,  30 
Pac.  664. 

A  slight  deficiency  will  defeat  the  purpose 
of  the  tender,  which  must  cover  all  the  costs, 
the  doctrine  de  mdnimis  non  curat  lex  not 
applying.  Wright  v.  Behrens,  39  N.  J.  L. 
413. 

Attorney's  fee.— Where  the  instrument  sued 
on  provides  for  payment  of  attorney's  fees, 
the  tender  must  include  such  fees.  Seeligson 
V.  Gifford,  (Tex.  Qiv.  App.  1907)  100  S.  W. 
213;  Sorrel  v.  Gifford,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1907) 
100  S.  W.  212;   Bolton  v.  Gifford,  45  Tex. 


Civ.  App.  140,  100  S.  W.  210.  See  also  supra, 
III,  A,  1,  note  31.  Thus  where  a  mortgage  pro- 
vides for  a  reasonable  attorney's  fee,  a  tender 
after  a  bill  is  filed  should  include  an  offer 
to  pay  a  reasonable  fee  for  service  already 
performed.  Fuller  v.  Brown,  167  111.  293,  47 
N.  E.  202;  Smith  v.  Jackson,  153  111.  399, 
39  N.  E.  130 ;  Oakford  v.  Brown,  68  111.  App. 
239.  But  where  there  is  an  attempt  to  fore- 
close by  advertisement,  and  the  notice  is 
withdrawn  because  it  is  imperfect,  the  mort- 
gagee is  not  entitled  to  demand  the  attorney's 
fee.  Collar  v.  Harrison,  30  Mich.  66.  If 
foreclosure  proceedings  are  not  binding  upon 
the  mortgagor  or  a  subsequent  encumbrancer, 
such  person  not  bound  need  not  tender  the 
attorney's  fee  or  the  cost  of  the  foreclosure. 
Catterlin  v.  Armstrong,  101  Ind.  258;  Gage 
V.  Brewster,  31  N.  Y.  218;  Vroom  v.  Ditmas, 
4  Paige  (N.  Y.)  526;  Benedict  v.  Gilman,  4 
Paige  (N.  Y.)   58. 

Where  the  statute  allows  an  attachment 
before  the  maturity  of  the  debt  and  a  writ 
is  issued  and  sustained,  a  tender  when  the 
debt  falls  due  must  include  the  costs  of  the 
attachment.  Audenreid  v.  Hull,  45  Mo.  App. 
202. 

Where  a  plaintiff,  in  good  faith,  has  sub- 
poenaed his  witnesses  in  the  usual  mode,  and 
has  placed  himself  under  a  legal  liability 
to  pay  them  if  they  attend,  he  is  entitled  to 
a  tender  of  their  fees,  and  it  makes  no  dif- 
ference whether  he  has  actually  paid  or 
tendered  -the  witnesses  their  fees  or  not. 
Smith  f.  Wilbur,  35  Vt.  133. 

43.  Rudulph  V.  Wagner,  36  Ala.  698. 

44.  Council  V.  Mulligan,  13  Sm.  &  M. 
(Miss.)  388;  Hines  v.  Strong,  46  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)   97  [affirmed  in  56  N.  Y.  670]. 

45.  Tender  of  fare  to  carrier  and  demand 
for  change  see  Cabbiers,  6  Cyc.  547. 

46.  Illinois. —  North  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  v. 
Le  Grand  Co.,  95  111.  App.  435. 

Indiana. —  Patterson  v.  Cox,  25  Ind.  261. 

Michigan. —  Hanscom  v.  Hinman,  30  Mich. 
419. 

New  York. —  Zeitlin  v.  Arkaway,  26  Misc. 
761,  56  N.  Y.  Suppl.  1058. 

North  Carolina. — ^Wilson  v.  Duplin  Tel.  Co., 
139  N.  C.  395,  52  S.  E.  62. 

Temas. —  Odom  v.  Carter,  36  Tex.  2'81; 
Houston,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Campbell,  (Civ.  App. 
189T)    40  S.  W.  431. 

[Ill,  A,  S,  a] 


140     [38  Cye.j 


TENDER 


tender  of  a  larger  amount  than  is  due  coupled  with  an  express  or  implied  request 
for  change  is  bad.*' 

b.  Waiver  of  Objection.  The  objection  to  a  demand  that  change  be  fur- 
nished is  waived  if  the  tender  is  refused  upon  some  other  ground,  as  where  a 
larger  sum  is  demanded,*'  or  where  the  tender  is  refused  unless  a  certain  amount 
be  agreed  upon  as  the  sum  due  on  a  separate  account/'  or  upon  the  ground  that 
money  offered  was  depreciated;  ^^  and  it  seems  that  a  mere  refusal  to  accept  the 
amount  tendered  without  specific  objection  that  change  is  demanded  waives  the 
objection  and  validates  the  tender."^' 

4.  Tender  of  Balance  Over  Offset.  A  legal  tender  cannot  be  made  of  the 
difference  between  the  amount  of  an  obligation  for  the  payment  of  money  and 
an  offset,^^  particularly  where  the  counter  demand  is  unlawful.^^ 

5.  Tender  on  Several  Demands.  A  person  indebted  upon  two  or  more  demands 
hfeld  by  the  same  creditor  may  make  a  tender  of  one  entire  sum  upon  all  the 
demands.^''    But  if  the  tender  is  refused  on  the  ground  that  the  amount  offered 


England. — Dean  v.  James,  4  B.  &  Ad.  547,  1 
N.  &  M.  303,  2  L.  J.  K.  B.  94,  24  E.  C.  L. 
241,  110  Eng.  Eeprint  561;  Wade's  Case,  5 
Coke  114a,  77  Eng.  Reprint  232;  Sevan 
V.  Rees,  7  Dowl.  P.  C.  510,  3  Jur.  608,  8  L.  J. 
Exch.  263,  5  M.  &  W.  306;  Douglas  v.  Patrick, 
3  T.  E.  683,  1  Rev.  Rep.  793,.  100  Eng.  Re- 
print 802. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tender,"  §  24. 

The  money  tendered  must  be  susceptible  of 
the  proper  division,  otherwise  a  tender  might 
be  made  in  such  a  way  that  it  would  be 
physically  impossible  for  the  creditor  to  take 
what  is  due  and  return  the  difference.  Bet- 
terbee  v.  Davis,  3  Campb.  70,  13  Rev.  Rep. 
755.  See  Robinson  v.  Cook,  6  Taunt.  336,  16 
Rev.  Rep.  624,  1  E.  C.  L.  642.  See  also  Hub- 
bard V.  Chenango  Bank,  8  Cow.   {N.  Y.)   88. 

47.  Patterson  v.  Cox,  25  Ind.  261 ;  Perkins 
V.  Beck,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,984,  4  Cranch 
C.  C.  68;  Dean  f.  James,  4  B.  &  Ad.  547,  2 
L.  J.  K.  B.  94,  1  N.  &  M.  303,  24  E.  C.  L. 
241,  110  Eng.  Reprint  561;  Betterbee  v. 
Davis,  3  Campb.  70,  13  Rev.  Rep.  755;  Blow 
f.  Russell,  1  C.  &  P.  365,  12  E.  C.  L.  217; 
iBevan  i:  Rees,  7  Dowl.  P.  C.  510,  3  Jur.  608, 
8  L.  J.  Exch.  263,  5  M.  &  W.  306;  Brady  v. 
Jones,  2  D.  &  R.  305,  16  E.  C.  L.  87;  Robin- 
son V.  Cook,  6  Taunt.  336,  16  Rev.  Rep.  624, 
1  E.  C.  L.  642. 

Offering  property  of  a  greater  value  than 
the  amount  of  the  chattel  note,  with  a  de- 
mand for  the  difference  in  money,  is  not  a 
good  tender.  Lamb  v.  Lathrop,  13  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)   95,  27  Am.  Dec.  174. 

48.  People's  Furniture,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Crosby, 
67  Nebr.  282,  77  N.  W.  658,  73  Am.  St.  Rep. 
504;  Richardson  v.  Jackson,  9  Dowl.  P.  0- 
715,  10  L.  J.  Exch.  303,  8  M.  &  W.  298; 
Bevans  v.  Rees,  7  Dowl.  P.  C.  510,  3  Jur. 
608,  8  L.  J.  Exch.  263,  5  M.  &  W.  306;  Cad- 
man  V.  Lubbock,  5  D.  &  R.  289,  3  L.  J.  K.  B. 
0.  S.  41,  16  E.  C.  L.  235;  Saunders  v.  Gra- 
ham, Gow.  121,  5  E.  C.  L.  891;  Black  v. 
Smith,  Peake  N.  P.  88,  3  Rev.  Rep.  661. 

49.  Bevan  v.  Rees,  7  Dowl.  P.  C.  510,  3 
Jur.  608,  8  L.  J.  Exch.  263,  5  M.  &  W.  306. 

50.  Lohman  v.  Crouch,  19  Gratt.  (Va.) 
331. 

51.  Gradle  v.  Warner,  140  111.  123,  29 
N.  E.  1118. 

[Ill,  A,  3,  a] 


52.  Rand  v.  Harris,  83  N.  C.  486 ;  Pershing 
V.  Feinberg,  203  Pa.  St.  144,  52  Atl.  22; 
Greenhill  v.  Hunton,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1902) 
69  S.  W.  440 ;  Searles  v.  Sadgrave,  5  E.  &  B. 
639,  2  Jur.  N.  S.  21,  25  L.  J.  Q.  B.  15,  4 
Wkly.  Rep.  53,  85  E.  C.  L.  639.  But  see 
Smith  V.  Curtiss,  38  Mich.  393;  Dedekam  v. 
Vose,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,729,  3  Blatchf.  44, 
where  it  was  held  that  in  admiralty  a  ten- 
der of  freight  charges  less  a  certain  sum  for 
damages  done  to  the  goods  was  a  sufficient 
tender. 

An  offer  to  pay  an  amount  due  for  towage, 
less  damages  done  certain  barges  other  than 
the  one  for  which  the  towage  was  claimed, 
is  insufficient.  L'Hommedieu  v.  The  H.  L. 
Dayton,  38  Fed.  926. 

Effect  of  tender  of  difference. — A  tender 
of  the  difference  between  the  amount  due 
and  it  counter-claim  is  an  admission  that  the 
amount  tendered  is  due  upon  the  contract 
sued  upon;  but  the  tender  does  not  preclude 
proof  of  the  counter-claim.  Young  v.  Bor- 
zone,  26  Wash.  4,  66  Pac.  135,  421. 

53.  Sager  v.  Tupper,  35  Mich.   134. 

54.  Johnson  v.  Cranage,  45  Mich.  14,  7 
N.  W.  188;  Thetford  v.  Hubbard,  22  Vt.  440. 

Where  a  creditor  has  separate  demands 
against  several  persons  an  offer  of  one  sum 
for  the  debts  of  all  will  not  support  a  plea 
that  a  certain  portion  of  the  sum  was  ten- 
dered for  the  debt  of  one.  Strong  v.  Harvey, 
3  Bing.  307,  4  L.  J.  C.  P.  0.  S.  57,  11  Moore 
C.  P.  72,  11  E.  C.  L.  153  [explained  in  Hall 
V.  Norwalk  F.  Ins.  Co.,  57  Conn.  105,  17  Atl. 
356]. 

Interest  coupons  in  the  hands  of  the  kolder 
of  the  bond  and  not  negotiated  are  not  dis- 
tinct debts,  and  a  tender  to  the  holder  of  the 
bond  of  the  entire  amount  of  the  principal 
and  interest  is  not  a  tender  on  two  demands. 
Bailey  v.  Buchanan  County,  115  N.  Y.  297, 
22  N.  E.  155,  6  L.  R.  A.  562. 

Where  a  person  was  indebted  on  different 
demands  to  several  persons  separately,  and 
when  they  were  together  he  tendered  them 
one  sum  sufficient  to  satisfy  all  their  de- 
mands, which  they  refused  to  receive  on  the 
ground  that  more  was  dufe,  it  was  held  to  be 
a  good  tender.  Black  v.  Smith,  Peake  N.  P. 
88,  3  Rev.  Rep.  661. 


TENDER 


[38  eye.]     141 


is  not  sufficient  to  pay  all  the  claims,  and  the  amount  offered  is  insufficient  in 
fact,  the  tender  will  not  be  good  as  to  any  of  the  separate  demands.''^  Conversely, 
a  debtor  may  pay  his  debts  separately,  and  may  therefore  designate  upon  what 
debt  the  money  tendered  is  to  apply;  ^°  and  if  there  is  a  statute  permitting  a 
tender  to  be  made  after  an  action  is  commenced,  and  several  distinct  claims  have 
been  included  in  the  complaint,  a  tender  of  the  amount  of  one  of  the  claims  with 
costs  of  the  action  is  a  tender  'pro  tanto  under  the  statute.^' 

6.  Waiver  of  Objection  to  Amount.  An  objection  to  the  amount  of  a  tender 
must  be  taken  at  the  time  the  tender  is  made,  otherwise  it  is  waived;  ^'  and  where 
the  sum  tendered  is  less  than  the  sum  due  and  the  tender  is  refused  by  the  creditor 
on  some  ground  other  than  that  the  amount  is  too  small,  as  where  it  is  claimed 
that  the  contract  is  forfeited,^"  the  tenderee  waives  the  objection  to  the  insuffi- 
ciency of  the  amount; "''  but  it  has  been  held  that  if  a  tender  of  a  certain  sum  is 
refused  without  assigning  any  reason  and  the  sum  offered  is  too  small  there  is 
no  waiver  of  the  objection  to  the  amount/'  A  waiver  of  the  objection  that  the 
amount  tendered  is  too  small  does  not  preclude  the  tenderee  from  recovering  the 
whole  amount  due,  nor  will  the  acceptance  of  a  less  sum  than  is  due  preclude  the 
recovery  of  the  balance.  °^ 

B.  Manner  —  1.  In  General.  The  tenderer  must  do  and  offer  everything 
that  is  necessary  on'  his  part  to  complete  the  transaction,  and  must  fairly  make 
known  his  purpose  without  ambiguity.'''  The  tender  must  be  made  in  good 
faith,^*  and  must  be  definite  and  certain  in  character,"^  so  as  to  leave  no  reasonable 
doubt  that  the  tenderer  intended  at  the  time  to  make  full  and  unconditional 
payment;  °°  and  the  tenderee  must  be  given  an  opportunity  for  intelligent  action,"' 
and  to  make  an  examination  or  inquiries  pertaining  to  his  rights  in  connection 


55.  People's  Sav.  Bank  v.  Norwalk,  56 
fconn.  ^547,  16  Atl.  257;  Shuck  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Iowa  333,  35  N.  W.  429; 
Hardingham  v.  Allen,  5  C.  B.  793,  12  Jur. 
584,  17  -L.  J.  C.  P.  198,  57  E.  C.  L. 
793. 

56.  Nelson  v.  Robson,  17  Minn.  284;  Sa- 
linas V.  Ellis,  26  S.  C.  337,  2  S.  E.  121. 

57.  Carleton  v.  Whitcher,  5  N.  H.  289. 

58.  Lamplev  v.  Weed,  27  Ala.  621;  Ken- 
tucky Chair  Co.  v.  Com.,  49  S.  W.  197,  20 
Kv.  L.  Rep.  1279;  Browning  v.  Crouse,  40 
Mich.  339. 

59.  Thayer  v.  Meeker,  86  111.  470;  Fland- 
ers V.  Chamberlain,  24  Mich.  305;  Bradshaw 
V.  Davis,  12  Tex.  336. 

60.  Arkansas. —  Bender  v.  Bean,  52  Ark. 
132,  12  S.  W.  180,  241. 

California. —  Oakland  Sav.  Bank  v.  Apple- 
garth,  67  Cal.  86,  7  Pac.  139,  476. 

Colorado. —  Northern  Colorado  Irr.  Co.  v. 
Richards,  22  Colo.  450,  45  Pac.  423. 

Iowa. —  Sheriff  v.  Hull,  37  Iowa  174; 
Guengerich  v.  Smith,  36  Iowa  587. 

Michigan. —  Hill  v.  Carter,  101  Mich.  158, 
59  N.  W.  413. 

Mississippi. —  Connell  «.  Mulligan,  13  Sm. 
&  M.  388. 

New  Hampshire. —  Ricker  v.  Blanchard,  45 
N.  H.  39. 

Pennsylvania. —  Brewer  v.  Fleming,  51  Pa. 
St.  102. 

South  Carolina. —  Smith  v.  Stinson,  1 
Brev.  1. 

Tennessee. —  Graves  v.  McFarlane,  2  Coldw. 
167. 

Wisconsin. —  Gauche  v.  Milbrath,  94  Wis. 
674,  69  N.  W.  999. 


This  rule  is  made  statutory  in  some  states. 
See  the  statutes  of  the  several  states.  And 
see  Latimer  v.  Capay  Valley  Land  Co.,  137 
Cal.  286,  70  Pac.  82. 

61.  McWhirter  v.  Crawford,  104  Iowa  550, 
72  N.  W.  505,  73  N.  W.  1021;  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Northwestern  Union  Packet  Co.,  38 
Iowa  377.  But  see  Hayward  v.  Munger,  14 
Iowa  516. 

63.  Patnote  v.  Sanders,  41  Vt.  66,  98  Am. 
Dec.  564;  Carpenter  v.  Welch,  40  Vt.  251. 

63.  Proctor  v.  Robinson,  35  Mich.  284; 
Lilienthal  v.  McCormick,  117  Fed.  89,  54 
C.  C.  A.  475. 

A  court  of  equity  will  not  supply  a  defect 
in  a  tender  against  a  rule  of  law.  Taylor  i: 
Reed,  5  T.  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  36  (holding  that 
if  a  party  pretends  to  avail  himself  of  the 
plea  of  tender  in  equity,  because  he  could 
not  make  it  at  law,  he  ought  to  be  held  to 
as  great  strictness  as  he  would  be  held  at 
law) ;  Arrowsmith  v.  Van  Harlingen,  1  N.  J.  L. 
26 ;  Shields  v.  Lozear,  22  N.  J.  Eq.  447.  See 
Shotwell  V.  Dennman,  1  N.  J.  L.  174;  Gam- 
mon f.  Stone,  1  Ves.  339,  30  Eng.  Reprint 
1068. 

64.  Doak  v.  Bruson,  152  Cal.  17,  91  Pac. 
1001;  Selby  v.  Hurd,  51  Mich.  1,  16  N.  W. 
180;  McPherson  v.  Wiswell,  16  Nebr.  625, 
21  N.  W.  391;   Fisk  v.  Holden,  17  Tex.  408. 

65.  Grace  v.  Means,  129  Ga.  638,  59  S.  E. 
811. 

66.  Pulsifer  v.  Shepard,  36  111.  513;  East- 
land V.  Longshorn,  1  Nott  &  M.   (S.  C.)    194. 

67.  Wiltshire  v.  Smith,  3  Atk.  89,  26  Eng. 
Reprint  854,  9  Mod.  441,  88  Eng.  Reprint 
561.  See  Harris  v.  Mulook,  9  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)   402. 

[HI,  B,  1] 


142     [SS'Cyc] 


TENDER 


with  the  transaction  in  which  the  tender  is  being  made;  °^  and  the  tenderer  must 
ordinarily  declare  upon  what  account  the  tender  is  rnade."^ 

2.  Actual  Offer.  In  making  a  tender  there  must  be  an  actual  offer  by  the 
tenderer  to  pay.'"  An  announcement  without  more  of  an  intention  of  making 
a  tender  is  not  sufficient,"  nor  is  an  assertion  of  readiness  "  or  willingness  to  pay 
sufficient.'^ 

3.  Ability  to  Perform.  In  making  a  tender,  the  tenderer  must  have  it  in 
his  power,  at  the  time  of  his  offer,  to  pay  the  amount  due;  '*  and  must  have  title 
to  the  thing  tendered;  '^  and  the  actual  ability  to  deliver  the  money  must  not 
only  exist,  but  it  must  be  made  to  appear  at  the  time  of  the  tender."    Mere 


A  tender  made  in  the  street  has  been  held 
not  good  when  the  creditor,  by  reason  of  the 
place,  was  without  means  of  ascertaining  the 
amount  due.  Waldron  v.  Murphy,  40  Mich. 
668;  Chase  v.  Welsh,  45  Mich.  345,  7  N.  W. 
895.  But  where  a  debtor  pulled  out  his 
pocket-book  and  offered  to  pay  if  the  cred- 
itor would  go  into  a  public  house  near  by, 
the  tender  was  held  good.  Read  v.  Goldring, 
2  M.  &  S.  86,  105  Eng.  Reprint  314. 

68.  Root  f.  Bradley,  49  Mich.  27,  12  N.  W. 
896;  Chase  v.  Welsh,  45  Mich.  345,  7  N.  W. 
895;  Waldron  v.  Murphy,  40  Mich.  668; 
Proctor  V.  Robinson,  35  Mich.  284;  Bake- 
man  v.  Pooler,  15  Wend.   (N.  Y.)   637. 

69.  Warner  v.  Harding,  Latch.  69,  82  Eng. 
Reprint  279. 

70.  Georgia. —  Angier  v.  Equitable  Bldg., 
etc.,  Assoc,  109  Ga.  625,  35  S.  E.  64. 

Illinois. —  Liebbrandt  r.  Myron  Lodge  No. 
One  0.  F.  0.  C,  61  111.  81. 

Iowa. —  Eastman  v.  Rapids  Dist.  Tp.,  21 
Iowa  590. 

Minnesota. —  Deering  Harvester  Co.  v. 
Hamilton,  80  Minn.  162,  83  N.  W.  44. 

Oregon. —  Smith  v.  Foster,  5  Oreg.  44. 

Pennsylvania. —  Sheredine  v.  Gaul,  2  Dall. 
190,  1  L.  ed.  344. 

Texas. —  Rogers  v.  People's  Bldg.,  etc., 
Assoc,   (Civ.  App.  1900)   55  S.  W.  383. 

yermojit.— Bowen  v.  Holly,  38  Vt.  574; 
Barney  v.  Bliss,  1  D.  Chipm.  399,  12  Am. 
Dec  696. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tender,"  §  29. 

Facts  insufficient  to  constitute  offer  see 
Winne  v.  Colorado  Springs  Co.,  3  Colo.  155 ; 
Sharpe  v.  Kennedy,  51  Ga.  257;  Steele  v. 
Biggs,  22  111.  643;  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.  v.  Over- 
man, 21  Ind.  App.  516,  52  N.  E.  771;  Shoe- 
maker V.  Porter,  41  Iowa  197;  Jones  v.  Mul- 
linix,  25  Iowa  198;  Eastman  v.  Rapids  Dist. 
Tp.,  21  Iowa  590;  Mclnerney  v.  Lindsay,  97 
Mich.  238,  56  N.  W.  603;  Chase  v.  Welsh,  45 
Mich.  345,  7  N.  W.  895;  Harmon  v.  Magee, 
57  Miss.  410;  Butts  v.  Burnett,  6  Abb.  Pr. 
N.  S.  (N.  Y.)  302;  Hornby  v.  Cramer,  12 
how.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  490;  Ladd  v.  Patten,  14 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,973,  1  Cranch  C.  C.  263; 
Ryder  v.  Townsend,  7  D.  &  R.  119,  4  L.  J. 
IC.  B.  O.  S.  27,  16  E.  C.  L.  272.  See  J.  H. 
North  Furniture,  etc,  Co.  f-.  Davis,  86  Mo. 
App.  296,  where  a  deposit  of  money  with  a 
justice  was  held  not  a  tender  at  common 
law;  nor  one  under  the  statute,  since  not 
made  to  the  constable,  as  required  therein. 

71.  Stone  t\  Billings,  167  111.  170,  47  N.  E. 
372  [affirming  63  111.  App.  371]. 

[Ill,  B,  1] 


Publishing  a  notice  in  a  paper  that  bonds 
will  be  paid  at  a  certain  time  and  place  other 
than  that  named  in  the  bond  is  not  a  tender. 
Kelley  v.  Phenix  Nat.  Bank,  17  N.  Y.  App. 
Div.  496,  45  N.  Y.  Suppl.  533. 

72.  Alabama. —  Cowan  v.  Harper,  2  Stew. 
&  P.  236. 

Indiana. —  Pratt  v.  Graflf,  15  Ind.  1;  Mc- 
Kernon  v.   McCormick,   2   Ind.    318. 

Kentucky. —  Mitchell  v.  Gregory,  1  Bibb 
449,  4  Am.  Dec  655. 

Louisiana. —  Bacon  v.  Smith,  2  La.  Ann. 
441,  46  Am.  Dec  549. 

North  Carolina. —  North  v.  Mallett,  3 
N.  C.  151. 

Tennessee. — -Nixon  v.  Bullock,  9  Yerg.  414. 

Texas, —  Dumas  v.  Hardwick,  19  Tex.  238. 

Vermont. —  Barney  v.  Bliss,  1  D.  Chipm. 
399,  12  Am.  Dec  696. 

Wisconsin. —  Hunter  t".  Warner,  1  Wis. 
141.  ' 

England. —  Scott  r.  Franklin,  15  East  428, 
]  04  Eng.  Reprint  906 ;  Sucklinge  v.  Coney, 
Noy  74,  74  Eng.  Reprint  1041. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tender,"  §  29  et 
seq. 

73.  Adams  v.  Friedlander,  37  La.  Ann. 
350;  Mclntyre  i\  Carver,  2  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.) 
392,  37  Am.  Dec  519. 

In  Louisiana  a  tender  must  be  made  in  the 
manner  provided  in  Code  Pr.  art.  407.  Me- 
chanics', etc..  Bank  !,-.  Barnett,  27  La.  Ann. 
177 ;  Thompson  i\  Edwards,  23  La.  Ann.  183. 
See  infra.  III,  B,  5. 

74.  Selby  v.  Hurd,  51  Mich.  1,  16  N.  W. 
180. 

75.  Reed  v.  Newburgh  Bank,  6  Paige 
(N,  Y.)    337. 

But  if  the  offer  is  accepted,  the  question 
of  a  tenderer's  title  is  material  only  so  far 
as  it  affects  his  ability  to  make  a  valid  trans- 
fer. Eslow  V.  Mitchell,  26  Mich.  500;  Cham- 
pion V.  Joslyn,  44  N.  Y.  653. 

A  tender  of  notes  which  were  borrowed  for 
the  purpose  of  tendering  them  back  to  the 
original  transferrer  was  held  good.  Bell  V. 
Ballance,  12  N.  C.  391. 

76.  Berger  v.  Peterson,  78  111.  633;  De 
Wolfe  V.  Taylor,  71  Iowa  648,  33  N.  W.  154; 
Selby  V.  Hurd,  51  Mich.  1,  16  N.  W.  180; 
Fuller  r.  Little,  7  N.  H.  535.  See  Pinney  f. 
Jorgenson,  27  Minn.  26,  6  N.  W.  376,  where 
it  was  held  that  it  was  error  to  exclude  evi- 
dence that  the  tenderer  then  had  the  money 
with  him. 

Merely  stating,  "  I  will  pay  you  the  money 
I  offered  you  yesterday,"  where  the  money 


TENDER 


[38  Cye.]     143 


ability  to  pay  on  the  day  fixed  for  payment  is  not  sufficient,"  nor  is  an  ability 
to  borrow;  "  but  the  money  must  be  in  the  creditor's  immediate  control  ready  for 
delivery,''  that  is  to  say  in  his  immediate  possession  or  within  convenient  reach.*" 
4.  Actual  Production  of  Thing  Tendered  —  a.  In  General.  In  order  to  make 
a  valid  tender  of  either  money  or  chattels,  the  thing  to  be  tendered  must  be  actu- 
ally produced  and  offered  to  the  party  entitled  thereto,  a  mere  offer  to  pay  being 
insufficient;  *'  and  the  tenderer  must  place  the  money  or  property  in  such  a  posi- 


was  in  a  desk  near  by,  was  held  not  suflS- 
cient.  It  ought  to  appear  that  the  money 
was  there,  capable  of  immediate  delivery. 
Glasscott  v..  Day,  5  Esp.  48,  8  Rev.  Eep.  828. 
Where  concurrent  acts  are  to  be  per- 
formed, a  refusal  to  perform  by  one  party 
will  ordinarily  discharge  the  other,  but  be- 
fore he  will  be  entitled  to  claim  the  benefit 
of  actual  performance  he  must  show  upon 
his  part  that  at  the  time  for  performance  he 
was  actually  able  to  perform,  for  otherwise 
the  performance  by  him  would  not  be  pre- 
vented by  the  declaration  of  the  other  party. 
Eddv  V.  Davis,  40  Hun  (N.  Y.)  637  laffi/rmed 
in  116  N.  Y.  247,  22  N.  E.  362];  Mills  v. 
ituggins,  14  N.  C.  58. 

77.  Myers  v.  Byington,  34  Iowa  205. 

78.  Sargent  v.  Graham,  5  N.  H.  440,  22 
Am.  Dec.  469 ;  Eastland  v.  Longshorn,  1  Nott 
&  M.  (S.  C.)   194. 

But  where  a  third  person  was  present 
with  the  money  and  joined  in  the  offer  the 
tender  was  held  sufficient  (Mathis  v.  Thomas, 
101  Ind.  119)  ;  and  an  offer  by  a  third  per- 
son to  go  upstairs  and  fetch  a  certain  sum 
which  the  debtor  had  offered  to  pay  his 
creditor,  where  the  offer  was  refused,  has 
been  held  to  constitute  a  tender  (Harding  V. 
Davis,  2  C.  &  P.  77,  31  Kev.  Rep.  654,  12 
E.  C.  L.  460). 

79.  Steel  v.  Biggs,  22  111.  643;  Wyllie  v. 
Matthews,  60  Iowa  187,  14  N.  W.  232; 
Niederhauser  v.  Detroit  Citizens'  St.  R.  Co., 
131  Mich.  S50,  91  N.  W.  1028;  Thompson  v. 
Hamilton,  5  U.  C.  Q.  B.  0.  S.  Ill;  Clerk 
V.  Wadleigh,  10  Quebec  Super.  Ct.  456. 

80.  Wynkoop  v.  Cowing,  21  111.  570. 
Possession  insufficient  to  validate  tender. 

— A  statement  by  a  debtor  that  he  can  get 
the  money  in  five  minutes  (Breed  v.  Hurd, 
6  Pick.  (Mass.)  356),  or  that  he  can  get 
it  the  next  morning  (Blair  v.  Hamilton,  48 
Ind.  32),  does  not  constitute  tender;  nor  does 
an  offer  to  pay  a  certain  sum  if  the  creditor 
would  go  to  a  certain  bank  (Stakke  v.  Chap- 
man, 13  S.  D.  269,  83  N.  W.  261),  and  where 
it  appeared  by  evidence  that  at  the  time  of 
making  the  offer  the  debtor  did  not  have  the 
money  but  could  have  got  it  in  another  city, 
the  tender  was  held  bad.  Dungan  v.  Mutual 
Ben.  L.  Ins.  Co.,  46  Md.  469.  But  on  the 
other  hand  a  refusal  to  receive  the  amount  of 
a  debt,  on  a  statement  by  the  debtor  that  he 
had  the  money  in  the  bank  in  the  same  build- 
ing, has  been  held  to  dispense  with  the  ac- 
tual production  of  the  money  (Smith  v.  Old 
Dominion  Bldg.,  etc.,  Assoc,  119  N.  C.  257, 
26  S.  E.  40),  and  where  the  tenderer  has 
money  in  another  bank  in  the  same  town 
and  could  have  produced  it,  the  tender  was 
also   held    good    (Steckel    v.    Standley,    107 


Iowa  694,  77  N.  W.  489)  ;  and  it  has  even 
been  held  that  where  a  mortgagee,  after  com- 
mencing foreclosure  proceedings,  demanded 
payment  of  the  mortgage  debt,  a  promise  to 
pay  as  soon  as  the  money  could  be  obtained 
from  the  bank  a  few  miles  distant  was  a 
valid  tender  (Sharp  v.  Todd,  38  N.  J.  Eq. 
324). 

If  the  debtor  intends  to  pay  with  a  check, 
it  must  be  drawn  at  the  time;  an  offer  to 
draw  a,  check  is  not  a  tender.  Dunham  v. 
Jackson,  6  Wendi  (N.  Y.)  22.  But  see  Link 
V.  Mack,  25  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  615,  56  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  115. 

Offer  in  writing. —  The  same  ability  to  pro- 
duce the  money  is  required  where  the  tender 
under  the  statute  may  be  made  in  writing. 
Hyams  v.  Bamberger,  10  Utah  3,  36  Pac.  202. 
See  infra,  III,  B,  5. 

81.  Alabama. —  Camp  v.  Simon,  34  Ala. 
126. 

Arkansas. —  Burr  v.  Dougherty,  21  Ark. 
559. 

California. —  People  v.  Harris,  9  Cal.  571. 

Illinois. —  Liebbrandt  v.  Myron  Lodge  No. 
One  0.  F.  0.  C,  61  111.  81. 

Indiana. — Schrader  v.  Wolfin,  21  Ind.  238. 

Iowa. —  Holt  V.  Brown,  63  Iowa  319,  19 
N.  W.  235;  Shoemaker  v.  Porter,  41  Iowa 
197. 

Louisiana. —  Bacon  v.  Smith,  2  La.  Ann. 
441,  46  Am.  Dec.  549. 

Maine. —  Brown  v.  Gilmore,  8  Me.  107,  22 
Am.  Dec.  223. 

Michigan. —  Chase  v.  Welsh,  45  Mich.  345, 
7  N.  W.  895. 

Minnesota. —  Deering  Harvester  Co.  v. 
Hamilton,  80  Minn.  162,  83  N.  W.  44. 

New  York.—  Lewis  v.  Mott,  36  N.  Y.  395 ; 
Leask  f.  Dew,  102  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  529,  92 
N.  Y.  Suppl.  891;  Strong  V.  Blake,  46  Barb. 
227;  Bolton  v.  Ainsler,  95  N.  Y.  Suppl.  481, 
482;  Cashman  v.  Martin,  50  How.  Pr.  337; 
Bakeman  v.  Pooler,  15  Wend.  637. 

Rhode  Island. —  Potter  v.  Thompson,  10 
R.  I.  1. 

Virginia. —  Moore  V.  Harnsberger,  26 
Gratt.  667. 

West  Virginia. —  Shank  v.  Groff,  45  W.  Va. 
543,  32  S.  E.  248. 

Wisconsin. —  Babcock  v.  Perry,  8  Wis.  277; 
Hunter  v.  Warner,  1  Wis.  141. 

See  45   Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tender,"  §  29. 

The  object  of  requiring  the  actual  produc- 
tion of  the  money  is  said  to  be  that  the 
sight  of  it  will  tend  to  induce  the  party  to 
whom  it  is  offered  to  accept  it,  thereby  pre- 
venting litigation.  Holladay  v.  Holladay,  13 
Oreg.  523,  11  Pac.  260,  12  Pac.  821;  Finch  v. 
Brook,  1  Bing.  N.  Cas.  253,  2  Hodges  97,  4 
L.  J.  C.  P.  1,  1  Scott  511,  27  E..  C.  L.  628; 
[III,  B,  4^  a] 


lU     [38  Cye.J 


TENDER 


tion  that  his  control  over  it  is  relinquished  for  a  sufficient  time  to  enable  the 
tenderee,  if  he  so  desires,  to  reduce  it  to  possession  by  merely  reaching  out  and 
laying  hold  of  the  money  or  thing;  *^  and  a  person  is  not  bound  to  say  whether  or 
not  he  will  accept  the  money  or  thing  until  it  is  produced.*^ 

b.  Counting  Out  Money.  If  a  tender  is  made  of  the  proper  amount  it  is  not 
necessary  for.  the  tenderer  to  count  it  out,**  particularly  where  the  counting  out 
is  waived  by  the  tenderee  refusing  to  receive  the  money, '^  it  being  the  duty  of  the 
party  who  is  to  receive  it  to  take  it  out  and  count  it.*" 

e.  Waiver.  The  actual  production  of  the  money  is ,  dispensed  with  if  the 
party  is  ready  and  willing  to  pay  the  same,  but  is  prevented  by  the  party  to  whom 
it  is  due  expressly  saying  that  it  need  not  be  produced,  as  he  would  not  accept  it,*' 
or  if  he  declares  that  he  will  not  receive  it,'*  or  refuses  to  remain  untU  it  is  pro- 


Kraus  x.  Arnold,  7  Moore  C.  P.  59,  17 
E.  C.  L.  508. 

An  offer  to  do  full  equity  is  not  sufficient. 
Ailey  v.  Burnett,  134  Mo.  313,  33  S.  W.  1122, 
35  S.  W.  1137. 

Where  the  amount  due  was  exclusively 
within  the  knowledge  of  the  creditor,  an 
application  to  know  the  amount  due  and  an 
offer  to  pay  on  being  informed  was  held  a 
sufficient  tender.  Shannon  v.  Howard  Mut. 
Bldg.  Assoc,  36  Md.  383. 

An  offer  by  letter  to  pay  the  money  due 
is  no  tender,  although  the  creditor's  attorney 
treated  it  as  a  tender,  and  wrote,  in  answer, 
"  I  decline  your  tender,  and  shall  file  the 
bill"  (Powney  v.  Blomberg,  8  Jur.  746,  13 
L.  J.  Ch.  450,  14  Sim.  179,  37  Eng.  Ch.  179, 
60  Eng.  Reprint  325),  and  a  valid  tender  is 
not  made  by  going  with  the  proper  amount 
to  the  office  of  the  creditor's  attorney,  and 
on  finding  no  one  there,  writing  a  letter  stat- 
ing that  he  can  have  the  money  by  calling 
for  it  (Middleton  r.  Scott,  3  Ont.  L.  Eep. 
26). 

82.  Sands  v.  Lyons,  18  Conn.  18. 

83.  Bakeman  v.  Pooler,  15  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
637. 

84.  Breed  v.  Hurd,  6  Pick.  (Mass.)  356; 
Behaly  f.  Hatch,  Walk.  (Miss.)  369,  12  Am. 
Dec.  570;  Wheeler  r.  Knaggs,  8  Ohio  169. 

It  will  not  do  to  have  it  in  a  pocket  or 
place  about  the  person,  concealed  from  the 
party.  Strong  v.  Blake,  46  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
227;  Bakeman  v.  Pooler,  15  Wend  (N.  Y.) 
637;  Farnsworth  v.  Howard,  1  Coldw. 
(Tenn.)  215. 

The  money  should  be  placed  within  con- 
venient reach  of  the  creditor.  Hartsoek  v. 
Mort,  76  Md.  281,  25  Atl.  303;  Curtiss  v. 
Greenbanks,  24  Vt.  536. 

If  held  in  the  hand  and  actually  offered  to 
the  creditor  the  tender  is  good  (Kaines  l?. 
Jones,  4  Humphr.  (Tenn.)  490),  and  where 
the  money  offered  was  held  in  the  hand  but 
not  exposed,  the  tender  was  held  good  (Rey- 
nolds V.  Allan,  10  U.  C.  Q.  B.  350). 

Where  the  money  offered  was  contained 
in  a  handkerchief  held  in  the  debtor's  hand, 
the  amount  and  kind  of  money  being  stated 
to  the  creditor,  the  tender  was  good.  Davis 
v.  Stonestreet,  4  Ind.  101. 

85.  King  V.  King,  90  Va.  177,  17  S.  E. 
894.  See  Appleton  v.  Donaldson,  3  Pa.  St. 
381. 

86.  Behaly  v.  Hatch,  Walk.    (Miss.)    369, 

[ni,  B,  4,  a] 


12  Am.  Dec.  570;  Thorne  K.  Mosher,  20  N.  J. 
Eq.  257;  Wade's  Case,  5  Coke  114a,  77  Eng. 
Reprint  232;  Read  c.  Goldring,  2  M.  &  S.  86, 
105  Eng.  Reprint  314. 

Lord  Coke  said:  "The  feoffee  may  ten- 
der the  money  in  purses  or  bags,  without 
shewing  or  telling  the  same,  for  he  doth  that 
which  he  ought,  viz.  to  bring  the  money  in 
purses  or  bags,  which  is  the  usual  manner 
to  carry  money  in,  and  then  it  is  the  part  of 
the  party  that  is  to  receive  it  to  put  it  out 
and  tell  it."    Coke  Litt.  208o. 

87.  Brown  v.  Gilmore,  8  Me.  107,  22  Am. 
Dec.  223 ;  Westmoreland,  etc.,  Natural  Gas 
Co.  V.  De  Witt,  130  Pa.  St.  235,  18  Atl.  724, 
5  L.  R.  A.  731 ;  King  v.  King,  90  Va.  177,  17 
S.  E.  894;  Wallis  r.  Glynn,  Coop.  282,  10 
Eng.  Ch.  282,  35  Eng.  Reprint  559,  19  Ves. 
Jr.  380,  34  Eng.  Reprint  559;  Dickinson  t. 
Shee,  4  Esp.  N.  P.  67;  Kraus  x>.  Arnold,  7 
Moore  C.  P.  59,  17  E.  C.  L.  508. 

88.  Alabama. —  Odum  r.  Rutledge,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  94  Ala.  488,  10  So.  222;  Rudulph  t\ 
Wagner,  36  Ala.  698.  See  Birmingham 
Paint,  etc.,  Co.  i;.  Crampton,  (1905)  39  So. 
1020. 

Connecticut. —  Hall  v.  Norwalk  F.  Ins.  Co., 
57  Conn.  105,  17  Atl.  356. 

Delaware.—  Wood  v.  Bangs,  2  Pennew. 
435,  48  Atl.  189. 

Zotco.— Austin  v.  Smith,  (1906)  109  N.  W. 
289;  Steckel  v.  Standley,  107  Iowa  694,  77 
N.  W.  489. 

Kentucky. —  Dorsey  v.  Barbee,  Litt.  Sel. 
Cas.  204,  12  Am.  Dec.  296. 

Louisiana. —  McStea  v.  Warren,  26  La. 
Ann.  453. 

Massachusetts. —  Hazard  v.  Loring,  10 
Cush.  267. 

Minnesota. — ^Pinney  v.  Jorgenson,  27  Minn. 
26,  6  N.  W.  376;  Scott  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  21  Minn.  322. 

Mississippi. —  Wesling  v.  Noonan,  31  Miss. 
599. 

Missouri. —  Stephenson  v.  Kilpatrick,  166 
Mo.  262,  65  S.  W.  773 ;  Westlake  v.  St.  Louis, 
77  Mo.  47,  46  Am.  Rep.  4;  Johnson  v.  Gar- 
lichs,  63  Mo.  App.  578;  Walsh  v.  St.  Louis 
Exposition,  etc.,  Assoc,  101  Mo.  534,  14 
S.  W.  722. 

New  Jersey. —  Thorne  v.  Mosher,  20  N.  J. 
Eq.  257. 

New  York. —  Stone  t:  Sprague,  20  Barb. 
509 ;  Bellinger  v.  Kilts,  6  Barb.  273 ;  Slinger- 
land  V.  Morse,  8  Johns.  474. 


TENDER 


[38  Cye.J     145 


duced,*'  or  repulses  the  debtor/"  or  makes  some  unjustifiable  demand  as  a  con- 
dition of  accepting  the  tender."  So  an  actual  production  is  waived  where,  the 
debtor  being  about  to  produce,  the  tenderee  refused  to  receive,  not  on  the  ground 
that  the  tender  is  not  produced,  but  upon  some  other  and  distinct  ground,"^  or 
refuses  to  deal  with  the  debtor,  referring  him  to  an  attorney  of  the  tenderee;  "^ 
or  where  the  agent  to  whom  the  offer  is  made  denies  having  authority  to  receive 
the  money,  when  he  in  fact  has  such  authority. "■'  Where  a  debtor  goes  to  the 
place  designated  for  payment,  at  the  time  appointed,  with  the  money  or  thing 
to  deliver  it,  and  the  person  who  is  to  receive  it  is  not  present,  the  money  or  thing 
need  not  be  produced."^  But  the  actual  production  of  the  money  is  held  not  to 
be  dispensed  with  by  a  bare  refusal  to  receive  the  sum  proposed  and  demanding 
more; ""  and  it  is  held  that  in  order  to  establish  a  waiver  there  must  be  an  existing 
capacity  to  perform."^ 

6.  Tender  in  Writing;  Statutory  Provisions.  At  common  law  a  mere  written 
proposal  to  pay  a  sum  of  money  if  unaccompanied  with  production  of  the  money 
or  thing  to  be  tendered  is  not  a  good  tender."'    But  under  statute,  in  some  states. 


TJlorth  Carolina. —  Terrell  t\  Walker,  65 
N.  C.  91. 

Pennsylvania. —  Brewer  v.  Fleming,  5 1  Pa. 
St.  102;  Appleton  v.  Donaldson,  3  Pa.  St. 
381;  Hanna  V.  Phillips,  1  Grant  253;  Eck- 
man  v.  Hildebrand,  1  Lane.  L.  Rev.  21. 

Tennessee. —  Memphis  City  Bank  v.  Smith, 
110  Tenn.  337,  75  S.  W.  1065;  Farnsworth 
V.  Howard,  1  Coldw.  215. 

Texas. —  Price  v.  McCoy,  1  Tex.  App.  Civ. 
Cas.  §  181. 

Vermont. —  Cobb  v.  Hall,  33  Vt.  233 ;  Dick- 
inson V.  Dutoher,  Brayt.  104;  Morton  v. 
Wells,  1  Tyler  381. 

Virginia. —  Lohman  v.  Crouch,  19  Gratt. 
331. 

United  States. —  Barker  v.  Parkenhom,  2 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  993,  2  Wash.  142. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tender,"  §  53. 

In  California,  Civ.  Code,  §  1496,  provides 
that  the  thing  tendered  need  not  be  produced 
unless  accepted  (Latimer  v.  Capay  Valley 
Land  Co.,  137  Cal.  286,  70  Pac.  82),  and  the 
actual  production  is  waived  unless  demanded 
at  the  time  (Green  v.  Barney,  (1894)  36  Pac. 
1026). 

Question  for  jury. — Whether  the  actual 
production  of  the  money  or  thing  was  dis- 
pensed with  is  a  question  of  fact  to  be  de- 
termined by  the  jury.  Guthman  v.  Kearn, 
8  Nebr.  502,  1  N.  W.  129;  Finch  v.  Brook, 
1  Bing.  N.  Cas.  253,  2  Hodges  97,  4  L.  J. 
C.  P.  1,  1  Scott  70,  2  Scott  511,  27  E.  C.  L. 
628 ;  Read  li.  Goldring,  2  M.  &  S.  86,  105  Eng. 
Reprint  314;  2  Greenleaf  Ev.  602.  See  also 
Milburn  v.  Milburn,  4  U.  C.  Q.  B.  179,  where 
it  was  held  that  it  was  for  the  jury  to  de- 
termine whether  the  tenderee  had  an  op- 
portunity to  determine  if  a  sufficient  sum 
was  oflfered  him. 

89.  Sands  v.  Lyons,  18  Conn.  18 ;  Leather- 
dale  V.  Sweepstone,  3  C.  &  P.  342,  14  E.  C.  L. 
600. 

90.  Wing  V.  Davis,  7  Me.  31  (where  the 
debtor,  with  the  money,  was  refused  admis- 
sion by  the  creditor  to  his  house)  ;  Sharp  i". 
Todd,  38  N.  J.  Eq.  324;  Mesrole  v.  Archer, 
3  Bosw.  (N.  Y.)   376. 

91.  Parker  v.  Perkins,  8  Cush.  (Mass.) 
318. 

[10] 


92.  Arkansas. —  Bender  v.  Bean,  52  Ark. 
132,  12  S.  W.  180,  241;  Nick  v.  Rector,  4 
Ark.  251. 

Illinois.— Ventres  v.  Cobb,  105  111.  33; 
Hanna  v.  Ratekin,  43  111.  462. 

Michigan. —  Lacy  v.  Wilson,  24  Mich. 
479. 

Minnesota. —  Wesling  v.  Noonan,  31  Miss. 
599. 

North  Carolina. —  Abrams  v.  Suttles,  44 
N.  C.  99. 

Pennsylvania. —  Wagenblast  v.  McKean,  2 
Grant  393. 

Teoeas. —  Haney  v.  Clark,  65  Tex.  93. 

Washington. — Weinberg  v.  Naher,  51  Wash. 
591,  99  Pac.  736,  22  L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  956. 

West  Virginia. —  Koon  v.  Snodgrass,  18 
W.  Va.  320. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tender,"  §  53. 

Compare  also  Packard  v.  Mobile,  151  Ala. 
159,  43  So.  963. 

93.  Ashburn  v.  Poulter,  35  Conn.  553; 
Finch  V.  Brook,  1  Bing.  N.  Cas.  253,  2  Hodges 
97,  4  L.  J.  C.  P.  1,  1  Scott  70,  2  Scott  511, 
27  E.  C.  L.  628;  Eao  p.  Banks,  2  De  G.  M. 
&  G.  936,  22  L.  J.  Bankr.  73,  1  Wkly.  Rep. 
57,  51  Eng.  Ch.  731,  42  Eng.  Reprint  1138. 

94.  Smith  v.  Old  Dominion  Bldg.,  etc.,  As- 
soc, 119  N.  C.  257,  26  S.  E.  40. 

95.  Morton  v.  Wells,  1  Tyler    (Vt.)    381. 

96.  Maine. —  Brown  v.  Gilmore,  8  Me.  107, 
22  Am.  Dec.  223. 

New  York. —  Dunham  v.  Jackson,  6  Wend. 
22. 

Pennsylvania. —  See  Wagenblast  v.  Mc- 
Kean, 2  Grant  393. 

Tennessee. —  Farnsworth  v.  Howard,  1 
Coldw.  215. 

England. —  Thomas  v.  Evans,  10  East  101, 
10  Rev.  Rep.  229,  103  Eng.  Reprint  714; 
Dickinson  v.  Shee,  4  Esp.  67;  Kraus  v.  Ar- 
nold, 7  Moore  C.  P.  59,  17  E.  C.  L.  508.  But 
see  Black  v.  Smith,  Peake  N.  P.  88,  3  Rev. 
Rep.  661. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tender,"  §  53. 

But  see  Lamar  v.  Sheppard,  84  Ga.  561,  10 
S.  E.  1084. 

97.  Leask  v.  Dew,  102  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  529, 
92  N.  Y.  Suppl.  891. 

98.  Angier  v.  Equitable  Bldg.,  etc.,  Assoc, 

[in,  B,  5] 


146     [38  Cyc] 


TENDER 


an  offer  in  writing  to  pay  a  definite  sum  of  money,  or  to  deliver  a  particular  thing, 
may  take  the  place  of  an  actual  production  and  proffer  of  the  money  to  be  paid 
or  thing  to  be  delivered.'"  Such  statutory  written  offer  dispenses  merely  with  the 
actual  production  of  the  money  or  thing,'  and  in  all  other  respects  the  common 
law  prevails.^ 

C.  Medium.  A  tender  of  money  in  satisfaction  of  an  obligation  payable 
in  money,  to  be  unobjectionable,  must  be  made  in  whatever  form  of  money  is, 
at  the  time,  legal  tender  for  the  payment  of  debts.'  But  objection  to  a  tender 
of  bank-bills  or  other  money  not  legal  tender,  but  which  is  lawful  money,*  current 
and  circulating  at  par,'*  is  deemed  to  be  waived,  if  at  the  time  the  money  is  offered 
objection  be  not  taken  that  the  money  is  not  legal  tender;  °  and  similarly,  although 
the  general  nile  is  that  an  offer  of  a  bank  check  for  the  amount  due  is  not  a  good 


109  Ga.  625-,  35  S.  E.  64;  Brill  r.  Grand 
Trunk  R.  Co.,  20  U.  C.  C.  P.  440. 

99.  See  the  statutes  of  the  several  states. 
And  see  Holt  v.  Brown,  63  Iowa  319,  19 
N.  W.  235;  Casady  v.  Bosler,  11  Iowa  242; 
HoUaday  v.  HoUaday,  13  Oreg.  523,  11  Pac. 
260,  12  Pac.  821;  Ladd  r.  Mason,  10  Oreg. 
308;  Chielovich  v.  Krauss,  (Cal.  1886)  11 
Pac.  781. 

1.  Shugart  v.  Pattee,  37  Iowa  422;  Mc- 
Court  v.  Johns,  33  Oreg.  561,  53  Pac.  601; 
HoUaday  v.  Holladay,  13  Oreg.  523,  11  Pac. 
260,  12  Pac.  821;  Ladd  r.  Mason,  10  Oreg. 
308;  Hyams  v.  Bamberger,  10  Utah  3,  36 
Pac.  202. 

2.  Kuhns  f.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Iowa 
528,  22  N.  W.  661 ;  Holladay  v.  Holladay,  13 
Oreg.  523,  11  Pac.  260,  12  Pac.  821. 

3.  Martiu  t.  Bott,  17  Ind.  App.  444,  46 
N.  E.  151;  Buchegger  r.  Sliultz,  13  Mich. 
40,  14  Am.  L.  Reg.  95 ;  Juilliard  «.  Greenman, 

110  U.  S.  421,  4  S.  Ct.  122,  28  L.  ed.  204; 
Knox  f.  Lee,  12  Wall.  (U.  S.)  457,  20.  L.  ed. 
287;  Polglass  i-.  Oliver,  2  Cromp.  &  J.  15, 
1  L.  J.  Exch.  5,  2  Tyrw.  89. 

What  constitutes  legal  tender  see  Pay- 
ment, 30  Cyc.   1212. 

Money  order  misnaming  tenderee. — ^Where, 
in  answer  to  a  letter  demanding  payment,  the 
debtor  sent  a  money  order  in  which  the  cred- 
itor was  described  by  the  wrong  name,  the 
tender  was  held  bad,  even  thoujjh  the  cred- 
itor was  informed  at  the  post-of&ce  that  he 
could  have  the  money  by  signing  the  order 
in  the  name  of  the  pavee.  Gordon  v.  Strange, 
1  Exch.  477,  11  Jur.  1019. 

4.  Wilson  i\  McVey,  83  Ind.  108;  Martin 
X.  Bott,  17  Ind.  App.  444,  46  N.  E.  151. 

5.  Ward  v.  Smith,  7  WalL  (U.  S.)  447,  19 
L.  ed.  207. 

If  a  tender  is  made  in  depreciated  bank- 
notes, the  refusal  to  accept  may  be  presumed 
to  arise  from  the  fact  of  such  depreciation. 
Cockrill   c.  Kirkpatrick,  9  Mo.  697. 

6.  Alabama. —  Seawell  r.  Henry,  6  Ala. 
226. 

Arkansas. —  Harriman  r.  Meyer,  45  Ark. 
37. 

Delaware. — Wood  r.  Bangs,  2  Pennew.  435, 
48Atl.  189;  Corbit  v.  Smyrna  Bank,  2  Harr. 
235,  30  Am.  Dec.  635. 

Florida. —  Spann  v.  Baltzell,  1  Fla.  301,  48 
Am.  Dec.  346. 

Illinois. —  New  Hope  Delaware  Bridge  Co. 

[UI,  B,  5] 


r.  Perry,  11  111.  467,  52  Am.  Dec.  443;  Keyes 
V.  Jasper,  5  111.  305. 

Kentucky. —  Jones  v.  Overstreet,  4  T.  B. 
Mon.  547. 

Massachusetts. —  Snow  f.  Perry,  9  Pick. 
539;  Hallowell,  etc..  Bank  v.  Howard,  13 
Mass.  235. 

Michigan. —  Koehler  v.  Buhl,  94  Mich.  496, 
54  N.  W.  157;  Beebe  r.  Knapp,  28  Mich.  53; 
Lacy  V.  Wilson,  24  Mich.  479;  Fosdick  v. 
Van  Husan,  21  Mich.  567;  Welch  v.  Frost, 
1  Mich.  30,  48  Am.  Dec.  692. 

Missouri. —  Cockrill  v.  Kirkpatrick,  9  Mo. 
697;  Williams  v.  Rorer,  7  Mo.  556. 

New  Hampshire. —  Brown  v.  Simons,  44 
N.  H.  475;  Cummings  f.  Putnam,  19  N.  H. 
569. 

Ohio. —  Jennings  v.  Mendenhall,  7  Ohio  St. 
257;  Wheeler  v.  Knaggs,  8  Ohio  169. 

Tennessee. —  Greenwald  v.  Roberts,  4  Heisk. 
494;  McDowell  v.  Keller,  4  Coldw.  258;  Noe 
V.  Hodges,  3  Humphr.  162;  Cooley  v.  Weeks, 
10  Yerg.  141 ;  Lowry  v.  McGhee,  8  Yerg.  242 ; 
Ball  i,-.  Stanley,  5  Yerg.  199,  26  Am.  Dec. 
263. 

Vermont. —  Curtiss  t.  Greenbanks,  24  Vt. 
536. 

United  States. —  U.  S.  Bank  v.  Georgia 
Bank,  10  Wheat.  333,  6  L.  ed.  334. 

England.—  Gillard  r.  Wise,  5  B.  &  C.  134, 
7  D.  &  R.  523,  4  L.  J.  K.  B.  O.  S.  88,  29  Rev. 
Rep.  190,  11  E.  C.  L.  399,  108  Eng.  Reprint 
49 ;  Grigsby  r.  Oakes,  2  B.  &  P.  526 ;  Tiley  v. 
Courtier,  2  Cromp.  &  J.  16  note;  Polglass  v. 
Oliver,  2  Cromp.  &  J.  15,  2  Tyrw.  89,  1  L.  J. 
Exch.  5;  Brown  v.  Saul,  4  Esp.  267;  Lockyer 
V.  Jones,  Peake  N.  P.  180  note,  3  Rev.  Rep. 
682  note;  Owenson  v.  Morse,  7  T.  R.  64,  101 
Eng.  Reprint  856;  Wright  v.  Reed,  3  T.  E. 
554,  100  Eng.  Reprint  729. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tender,"  §  46  et 
seq. 

An  objection  to  the  medium  of  payment 
cannot  be  disregarded,  although  the  real  mo- 
tive for  refusing  the  tender  is  to  get  rid  of 
the  contract.  Decamp  v.  Feay,  5  Serg.  &  R. 
(Pa.)  323,  9  Am.  Dec.  372. 

An  order  on  a  third  person  and  the  balance 
in  money  is  not  a  good  tender  whatever  the 
objection  may  be.  Hall  v.  Appel,  67  Conn. 
585,  35  Atl.  524. 

Tender  to  agent. —  Where  an  agent  or  clerk 
authorized  to  receive  payment  fails  to  object 
to  current  bank-bills  on  the  ground  that  they 


TENDER 


[38  Cycj     147 


tender,'  if  the  tender  of  the  check  is  refused,  not  on  the  ground  that  it  is  not  legal 
tender,  but  upon  some  other  ground,^  as  that  it  is  not  drawn  for  the  sum  the 
creditor  demands,'  or  that  it  is  not  made  in  time,'"  the  objection  to  the  check  is 
waived  and  the  tender  is  good  as  far  as  the  medium  of  payment  is  concerned, 
and  this  rule  extends  to  drafts  "  and  certificates  of  deposit."  However,  mere 
silence  on  the  part  of  the  tenderee  as  to  his  reason  for  refusing  the  tender  does  not 
constitute  a  waiver  of  the  objection  that  the  tender  is  made  by  check;  '^  and  so 
also  there  is  no  waiver  if  the  creditor  is  not  present  at  the  time  to  object." 

D.  Time  and  Place  —  l.  Time  —  a.  In  General.  At  common  law  a  tender 
of  money  which  a  party  is  bound  to  pay  at  a  certain  time  and  place  must  be  made 
on  the  day  fixed  for  payment,  and  not  thereafter."  This  rule  in  some  states  has 
been  changed  by  statute,'"  in  others  by  the  decisions  of  the  courts; "  and  the 
general  rule  now  is  that  in  case  of  money  demands  where  the  amount  is  liquidated, 
or  capable  of  being  made  so  by  mere  computation,  and  the  damages  are  merely 
the  interest,  a  tender  may  be  made  after  default  at  any  time  before  action.^'    But 


are  not  legal  tender  the  objection  is  waived 
and  the  tender  is  good.  People  t.  Mayhew, 
26  Cal.  655;  Hoyt  x,.  Byrnes,  11  Me.  475; 
Ward  V.  Smith,  7  Wall.  {U.  S.)  447,  19 
L.  ed.  207.  But  see  Welch  v.  Frost,  1  Mich. 
30,  48  Am.  Deo.  692. 

7.  Colorado. —  Larsen  v.  Breene,  12  Colo. 
480,  21  Pac.  49'8. 

District  of  Golurnbia. —  Barbour  v.  Hickey, 
2  App.  Cas.  207,  24  L.  R.  A.  763. 

Illinois.- — •  Harding  j;.  Commercial  Loan  Co., 
84  111.  251 ;  Sloan  v.  Petrie,  16  111.  262. 

Mississippi. —  Collier  v.  White,  67  Miss. 
133,  6  So.  618. 

Nehraska.—  Te  Poel  v.  Shutt,  57  Nebr.  592, 
78  N.  W.  288. 

New  Yorfc.— Matter  of  Collyer,  124  N.  T. 
App.  Div.  16,  108  N.  Y.  Suppl.  600;  Volk  v. 
Olsen,  54  Misc.  227,  104  N.  Y.  Suppl.  415; 
Block  V.  Garfiel,  30  Misc.  821,  61  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  918;  Kumpf  t.  Schiff,  109  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
51;  Martin  f.  Clover,  17  N.  Y.  Suppl.  638; 
Grussy  v.  Schneider,  50  How.  Pr.  134. 

Virginia. —  See  Poague  v.  Greenlee,  22 
Gratt.  724. 

8.  Walsh  V.  -St.  Louis  Exposition,  etc.,  As- 
soc, 101  Mo.  534,  14  S.  W.  722. 

A  certified  check  is  not  ordinarily  the 
equivalent  of  money  for  the  purposes  of  a 
tender.  Hobbs  v.  Ray,  96  S.  W.  589,  29  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  999.  But  the  tender  of  a  certified 
check  in  payment  of  a  debt  is  sufiicient,  where 
no  objection  is  made  to  the  form  in  which 
the  tender  is  made.  Germania  L.  Ins.  Co.  «. 
Potter,  124  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  814,  109  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  435  [reversing  57  Misc.  204,  107  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  912]. 

A  tender  of  an  uncertified  check  is  sufficient 
if  it  is  not  objected  to  on  the  ground  that  it 
is  uncertified.  Bunte  v.  Schumann,  46  Misc. 
(N.  Y.)   593,  92  N.  Y.  Suppl.  806. 

9.  Iowa. —  Shay  v.  Callanan,  124  Iowa  370, 
100  N.  W.  55. 

Maryland. —  Bonaparte  v.  Thayer,  95  Md. 
548,  52  Atl.  496;  McGrath  v.  Gegner,  77 
Md.  331,  26  Atl.  502,  39  Am.  St.  Rep.  415. 

J^eirasfea.— Ricketts  v.  BuckstafF,  64  Nebr. 
851,  90  N.  W.  915. 

New  Yorh. —  Mitchell  v.  Vermont  Copper 
Min.  Co.,  67  N.  Y.  280  [affirming  40  N.  Y. 
Super.  Ct.  406]. 


Pennsylvania. —  Pershing  v.  Feinberg,  203 
Pa.  St.  144,  52  Atl.  22. 

England. — ^  Jones  v.  Arthur,  8  Dowl.  P.  C. 
442,  4  Jur.  859. 

If  a  tender  is  made  in  the  form  of  a  check 
in  a  letter  and  no  objection  is  made  to  the 
medium  but  only  to  the  quantum  of  the 
tender,  it  is  good  if  actually  sufficient  in 
amount.  Jones  v.  Arthur,  8  Dowl.  P.  C. 
442,  4  Jur.  859.  See  Lampasas  Hotel,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Home  Ins.  Co.,  17  Tex.  Civ.  App.  615, 
43  S.  W.  lOiSl. 

Demanding  that  the  check  be  drawn  in  a 
particular  way  has  been  held  to  be  no  waiver 
of  the  objection  that  money  is  not  tendered. 
Murphy  v.  Gold,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.,  3  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
804. 

10.  Kollitz  v.  Equitable  Mut.  F.  Ins.  Co., 
92  Minn.  234,  99  N.  W.  892 ;  Duffy  v.  O'Dono- 
van,  46  N.  Y.  223. 

11.  Shay  V.  Callanan,  124  Iowa'  370,  100 
N.  W.  55 ;  Hidden  v.  German  Sav.,  etc.,  Soc, 
48  Wash.  384,  93  Pac.  668. 

12.  Gradle  v.  Warner,  140  111.  123,  29  N.  E. 
1118. 

13.  Jennings  v.  Mendenhall,  7  Ohio  St.  257. 

14.  Sloan  v.  Petrie,  16  111.  262. 

15.  Maynard  v.  Hunt,  5  Pick.  (Mass.)  240; 
Dewey  v.  Humphrey,  5  Pick.  (Mass.)  187; 
Suffolk  Bank  v.  Worcester  Bank,  5  Pick. 
(Mass.)  106;  City  Bank  v.  Cutter,  3  Pick. 
(Mass.)  414;  Dixon  v.  Clark,  5  C.  B.  365, 
5  D.  &  L.  155,  16  L.  J.  C.  P.  237,  57  E.  C.  L. 
365;  Cotton  i\  Godwin,  9  Dowl.  P.  C.  763,  10 
L.  J.  Exch.  243,  7  M.  &  W.  147;  Whit- 
lock  V.  Squire,  10  Mod.  81,  88  Eng.  Re- 
print 636;  Poole  v.  Crompton,  5  Dowl. 
P.  C.  468;  Hume  v.  Peploe,  8  East  168, 
9  Rev.  Rep.  399,  109  Eng.  Reprint  306; 
Dobie  V.  Larkin,  10  Exch.  776,  3  Wkly.  Rep. 
247;  Poole  v.  Thumbridge,  6  L.  J.  Exch.  74, 
2  M.  &  W.  223. 

16.  See  the  statutes  of  the  several  states. 
And  see  Suffolk  Bank  v.  Worcester  Bank,  5 
Pick.  (Mass.)  106;  City  Bank  l'.  Cutter,  3 
Pick.  (Mass.)  414,  citing  Mass.  Rev.  St. 
c.  100,  §  14. 

17.  Tracy  v.  Strong,  2  Conn.  659. 

18.  Rudulph  V.  Wagner,  36  Ala.  698; 
Loughborough  v.  McNevin,  74  Cal.  250,  14 
Pae.  369,  15  Fac.  773,  5  Am.  St.  Rep.  435; 

[III,  D,  1,  a] 


14:8     [38  Cye.J 


TENDER 


a  tender  cannot  be  made  after  default  where  the  damages  are  unliquidated," 
where  time  is  of  the  essence  of  the  contract/"  or  where  a  forfeiture  has  been 
declared,^'  or  if  the  time  for  tendering  is  limited  by  statute;  ^^  and  a  promise  to 
pay  in  chattels,  or  in  anything  of  a  fluctuating  value,  must  be  strictly  complied 
with  as  to  time,  and  a  tender  of  the  thing  to  be  paid  cannot  be  made  before  or 
after  the  day  fixed  for  payment.^^  Where  an  executory  contract  is  silent  as  to 
the  time  of  performance,  a  tender  must  be  made  within  a  reasonable  time.^* 

b.  Time  of  Day.  To  make  a  tender  good  as  to  time  of  day,  the  general  rule 
is  that  the  tenderer  must,  at  the  latest  time,  on  the  last  day  of  the  term  of  the 
contract,  before  the  sun  sets,  produce  the  money  or  goods  and  offer  to  comply 
with  the  contract,^^  and  the  tender  must  be  made  a  sufficient  length  of  time  before 


Young  V.  Daniels,  2  Iowa  126,  63  Am.  Dec. 
477.  See  Walker  t.  Barnes,  1  Marsh.  36,  5 
Taunt.  240,  15  Eev.  Rep.  655,  1  E.  C.  L.  131 ; 
Leftley  v.  Mills,  4  T.  R.  170,  100  Eng.  Re- 
print 955. 

19.  Day  v.  Laiferty,  4  Ark.  450.  See  also 
Loughborough  f.  McNevin,  74  Cal.  250,  14 
Pac.  369,  15  Pae.  773,  5  Am.  St.  Rep.  435. 

20.  Kentucky  Distilleries,  etc.,  Co.  v.  War- 
wick Co.,  109  Fed.  280,  48  C.  C.  A.  363.  See 
also  Loughborough  r.  McNevin,  74  Cal.  250, 

14  Pac.  369,  15  Pac.  773,  5  Am.  St.  Rep. 
435. 

21.  Sylvester  t.  Holasek,  83  Minn.  362,  86 
N.  W.  336;  Whiteman  t.  Perkins,  56  Nebr. 
181,  76  N.  W.  547;  Bayley  r.  Duvall,  2  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  1,139,  1  Cranch  C.  C.  283. 

After  a  debt  has  been  satisfied  by  a  sale 
of  property  pledged  as  security  a  tender 
comes  too  late.  Loomis  t.  Stave,  72  111. 
©23. 

22.  Clower  v,.  Fleming,  81  Ga.  247,  7  S.  E. 
278;  Thomas  v.  Nichols,  127  N.  C.  319,  37 
S.  E.  327. 

23.  Toulmin  v.  Sager,  42  Ala.  127;  Powe 
V.  Powe,  42  Ala.  113;  White  %.  Prigmore,  29 
Ark.  208;  Day  f.  Lafferty,  4  Ark.  450; 
Stucker  f.  Miller,  5  Litt.  (Ky.)  235;  Mingus 
V.  Pritchet,  14  N.  C.  78;  Wales  t.  Cooke, 
13  N.  C.  183. 

24.  Indiana,. —  Conklin  v.  Smith,  7  Ind. 
107,  63  Am.  Dec.  416. 

Massachusetts. —  Atwood  v.  Cobb,  16  Pick. 
227,  26  Am.  Dec.  657. 

Nebraska. —  Coleridge  Creamery  Co.  v.  Jen- 
kins, 66  Nebr.  129,  92  N.  W.  123. 

New  York.— Buss  v.  White,  65  N.  Y. 
565. 

Pennsylvania. —  Roberts  v.  Beatty,  2  Penr. 
&  W.  63,  21  Am.  Dec.  410. 

Tennessee. —  Jones  v.  Peet,  1  Swan  293. 

England. —  Ellis  v.  Thompson,  1  H.  &  H. 
131,  7  L.  J.  Exch.  185,  3  M.  &  W.  445. 

What  is  a  reasonable  time  is  to  be  deter- 
mined in  each  case  by  a  view  of  all  the  facts 
and  circumstances  attending  the  transaction. 
Roberts  v.  Mazeppa  Mill  Co.,  30  Minn.  413, 

15  N.  W.  680. 

A  failure  to  formally  withdraw  the  offer 
after  the  expiration  of  a  reasonable  time  will 
not  validate  a  tender  made  thereafter. 
Bowen  v.  McCarthy,  85  Mich.  26,  48  N.  W. 
155. 

25.  Kentucky. —  Duckham  v.  Smith,  5 
T.  B.  Mon.  372;  Williams  v.  Johnson,  Litt. 
Sel.   Cas.   84,   12  Am.   Deo.   275;    Kendal  v. 

[Ill,  D,  1,  a] 


Talbot,  1  A.  K.  Marsh.  321;  Johnson  v. 
Butler,  4  Bibb  97;  Colyer  v.  Hutchings,  2 
Bibb  404;  Jouett  v.  Wagnon,  2  Bibb  269,  5 
Am.  Dec.  602. 

Maine. —  Wing  v.  Davis,  7  Me.  31;  Aldrich 
V.  Albee,  1  Me.  120,   10  Am.  Dec.  45. 

Mississippi. —  Bates  v.  Bates,  Walk.  401, 
12  Am.  Dec.  572. 

Rhode  Island. —  Hall  i:  Whittier,  10  R.  I. 
530. 

Tennessee. —  Tiernan  v.  Napier,  5  Yerg. 
410. 

Vermont. —  Sweet  f.  Harding,  19  Vt.  587 ; 
Mortin  v.  Wells,  1  Tyler  381. 

England. — -  Lancashire  v.  Kellingworth, 
Comyns  116,  92  Eng.  Reprint  991,  1  Ld. 
Raym.  686,  91  Eng.  Reprint  1357,  12  Mod. 
529,  88  Eng.  Reprint  1498,  3  Salk.  242,  91 
Eng.  Reprint  862;  Wade's  Case,  5  Coke  114o, 
77  Eng.  Reprint  232,  2  Coke  Litt.  202o; 
Tinckler  v.  Prentice,  4  Taunt.  549,  13  Rev. 
Rep.  684. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.   "Tender,"   §   17. 

Tender  before  hour  for  closing  business. — 
Upon  the  question  whether  a  tender  must  be 
made  at  a  convenient  time  before  the  expira- 
tion of  an  earlier  hour  than  sunset,  whicn 
by  custom  and  usage  in  a  particular  busi- 
ness is  the  time  limited  for  closing  the 
daily  business,  it  has  been  held  that  where 
a  contract  provided  for  the  delivery  of  stock 
on  a  specified  day,  the  tender  made  at  the 
uttermost  convenient  time  of  the  day  fixed, 
before  the  usual  time  of  shutting  the  books, 
was  good.  Lancashire  v.  Kellingworth, 
Comyns  116,  92  Eng.  Reprint  991,  1  Ld. 
Raym.  686,  91  Eng.  Reprint  1357,  12  Mod. 
529,  88  Eng.  Reprint  1498,  3  Salk.  242,  91 
Eng.  Reprint  862.  But  in  a  similar  later 
case  where  it  appeared  that  there  was  more 
business  that  day  than  could  be  transacted 
before  the  regular  closing  hour,  and  for  that 
reason  the  books  were  again  opened  after^ 
that  hour,  a  transfer  made  before  the  regular 
closing  hour  was  held  not  a  good  tender. 
The  court  held  that  the  general  rule,  which 
is  that  a  tender  must  be  made  at  the  utter- 
most convenient  time  of  the  day,  ought  not 
to  be  broken  through,  except  in  cases  of 
necessity,  and  that  in  the  present  case  there 
was  no  necessity  to  break  through  it,  be- 
cause, as  the  books  were  again  opened  in 
the  afternoon,  the  tender  ought  to  have  been 
made  at  the  uttermost  convenient  time  be- 
fore the  shutting  of  the  books  in  the  after- 
noon.    Lancashire  v.  Kellingworth,   Comyns 


TENDER 


[88  Cyc]     149 


the  sun  sets  so  that  the  money  may  be  counted  or  the  goods  examined  by  day- 
light; ^°  but  where  no  place  for  delivery  is  stipulated,  it  is  held  that  a  tender  may 
be  made  at  any  time  before  midnight;  ^'  and  a  tender  of  specific  articles  in  pay- 
ment of  a  debt  made  after  sunset  where  the  creditor  had  been  absent  through 
the  day  has  been  held  good.^'  If  it  happens  that  the  parties  meet  at  the  place 
at  an  earlier  hour  of  the  last  day,  a  tender  may  be  made  at  that  time.^° 

e.  Premature  Tender.  A  premature  tender  is  generally  held  to  be  unavail- 
able for  most  purposes.^"  But  where  payment  may  be  made  "on  or  before" 
a  day  named,''  or  within  a  certain  time,'^  a  tender  may  be  made  at  any  time  after 
the  date  of  the  contract. 

d.  Tender  After  Action  Brought.  At  common  law  a  tender  must  be  made 
by  a  debtor  before  the  commencement  of  the  action  to  recover  the  thing  due.'' 
By  statute  in  some  states,  however,  tender  after  suit  is  allowed,  usually  up  to 
the  commencement  of  trial,"  in  which  event,  however,  it  can  be  made  only  in 


116,  92  Eng.  Reprint  991,  1  Ld.  Raym.  686,  91 
Eng.  Reprint  1357,  12  Mod.  529,  88  Eng.  Re- 
print 1498,  3  Salk.  242,  91  Eng.  Reprint 
862;  Rutland  v.  Batty,  Str.  777,  93  Eng.  Re- 
print 842. 

26.  Aldrich  v.  Albee,  1  Me.  120,  10  Am. 
Dec.  45;  Doe  v.  Paul,  3  C.  &  P.  613,  14 
E.  C.  L.  744. 

27.  Smith  v.  Walton,  5  Houst.  (Del.) 
141;  MeClartey  v.  Gokey,  31  Iowa  505; 
Startup  v.  Macdonald,  12  L.  J.  Exch.  477,  6 
M.  &  G.  593,  7  Scott  N.  R.  269,  46  E.  C.  L. 
593.  See  also  Sweet  v.  Harding,  19  Vt.  587. 
Compare  Williams  v.  Johnson,  Litt.  Sel. 
Cas.  (Ky.)  84,  12  Am.  Dec.  275;  Croninger 
t\  Crocker,  62  N.  Y.   151. 

28.  Avery  v.  Stewart,  2  Conn.  69,  7  Am. 
Dec.  240. 

29.  Aldrich  v.  Albee,  1  Me.  120,  10  Am. 
Dec.  45;  Hall  v.  Whittier,  10  R.  I.  530; 
Startup  r.  Macdonald,  12  L.  J.  Exch.  477, 
6  M.  &  G.  593,  7  Scott  N.  R.  269,  46  E.  C.  L. 
593;  Wade's  Case,  5  Coke  144o,  77  Eng. 
Reprint  232. 

30.  California. —  Rhorer  v.  Bila,  83  Gal. 
51,  23  Pac.  274. 

Connecticut. — ^Abbe  v.  Goodwin,  7  Conn. 
377. 

Indiana. —  Bowen  v.  Julius,  141  Ind.  310, 
40  N.  E.  700;  Abshire  v.  Corey,  113  Ind. 
484,  15  N.  E.  685. 

Maine. —  Portland  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
74  Me.  241.  But  see  Eaton  v.  Emerson,  14 
Me.  335. 

Massachusetts. —  Saunders  v.  Frost,  5 
Pick.  259,  16  Am.  Dec.  394;  Kingman  v. 
Pierce,  17  Mass.  247. 

Missouri. —  Illingworth  v.  Miltenberger, 
11  Mo.   80. 

Montana. —  Schultz  v.  O'Rourke,  18  Mont. 
418,  45  Pac.   634. 

Welraska. —  Moore  v.  Kime,  43  Nebr.  517, 
61  N.  W.  736. 

New  Jersey. —  Tillou  v.  Britton,  9  N.  J. 
L.  120. 

New  York. —  Ellis  v.  Craig,  7  Johns.  Ch.  7. 

Wisconsin. —  See  Moore  v.  Cord,  14  Wis. 
213. 

England. —  Brown  v.  Cole,  9  Jur.  290,  14 
L.  J.  Ch.  167,  14  Sim.  427,  37  Eng.  Ch.  427, 
60  Eng.  Reprint  424. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tender,"   §   14. 


But  see  Quynn  v.  Whetcroft,  3  Harr.  & 
M.    (Md.)    136,  1  Am.  Dee.  375. 

According  to  the  civil  law,  where  a  dis- 
tant day  of  payment  is  given  exclusively  for 
the  benefit  of  the  debtor,  the  latter  may 
make  a  tender  of  the  amount  due,  before  the 
time  fixed  for  payment.  Ellis  V:  Craig,  7 
Johns.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  7,  Pothier  Obi.  Pt.  II, 
c.  3,  art.  3. 

31.  Brent  v.  Fenner,  4  Ark.  160;  Barbee 
V.  Inman,  4  Blackf.  (Ind.)  420;  Sanders  v. 
Burk,    (Va.  1895)    22  S.  E.  516. 

The  phrases  "  in  sixty  days,"  "  in  sixty 
days  from  date,"  "  in  sixty  days  from  day 
of  the  date,"  are  held  to  mean  that  the  debt 
falls  due  the  number  of  days  mentioned 
after  the  date  of  the  contract,  and  a  tender 
cannot  be  made  before  the  end  of  the  period. 
Henry  v.  Jones,  8  Mass.  453. 

32.  Buffum  V.  Buffum,  11  N.  H.  451;  Gil- 
man  V.  Moore,   14  Vt.  457. 

33.  Nebraska. —  Whiteman  v.  Perkins,  56 
Nebr.  181,  76  N.  W.  547. 

New  Jersey. —  Levan  v.  Sternfield,  55 
N.  J.   L.  41,  25   Atl.  854. 

Neio  yorfe.— Jackson  v.  Law,  5  Cow.  248. 

North  Carolina, —  Winningham  v.  Redding, 
51  N.  C.  126;  Murray  v.  Windley,  29  N.  C. 
201,  47  Am.  Dec.  324. 

South  Carolina. —  Pishburne  v.  Sanders,  1 
Nott  &  M.  242. 

Tennessee. —  Miller  v.  Andrews,  3  Coldw. 
380. 

Texas.— Berry  v.  Davis,  77  Tex.  191,  13 
S.  W.  978,  19  Am.  St.  Rep.  748;  Simon  v. 
Allen,  76  Tex.  398,  13  S.  W.  296. 

See  45  Cent.   Dig.  tit.  "Tender,"  §   18. 

Where  an  action  has  been  discontinued 
and  another  commenced,  a  tender  made  after 
the  discontinuance  and  before  the  commence- 
ment of  the  second  action  is  a  tender  before 
the  action.  Johnson  v.  Clay,  1  Moore  C.  P. 
200,  7  Taunt.  486,  2  E.  C.  L.  459;  3  Bl. 
Comm.  304,  note  19.  A  tender  by  plaintiff  of 
the  amount  due  on  a  judgment,  before  it  is 
pleaded  as  a  set-off,  is  a  tender  before 
action,  although'  made  after  the  action  was 
commenced;  a  set-off  or  counter-claim  being 
not  in  litigation  until  it  is  pleaded.  Has- 
sam  V.  Hassam,  22  Vt.  516. 

34.  See  the  statutes  of  the  several  states. 
And   see   Sweetland   v.   Tuthill,   54  111.   215; 

[III,  D,  1,  d] 


150     [38  CycJ 


TENDER 


the  particular  classes  of  cases  mentioned  in  the  statute;  ^^  and  where  the  statute 
provides  that  a  tender  can  only  be  made  before  the  commencement  of  the  trial, 
after  the  trial  it  comes  too  late;  ^°  and  a  statute  authorizing  a  tender  at  any  time 
before  judgment  is  held  not  applicable  to  cases  where  plaintiff  is  bound  to  make 
a  tender  previous  to  suit  to  have  a  standing  in  court. ^^  A  tender  after  action 
commenced  does  not  bar  the  farther  prosecution  of  the  action,  but  if  otherwise 
sufficient  it  stops  interest  and  subjects  plaintiff  to  subsequent  costs.^* 

e.  Waiver  of  Objection  to  Time.  Where  a  tender  comes  too  late,  a  refusal 
solely  upon  some  collateral  ground  is  a  waiver  of  the  objection  that  the  tender 
was  not  made  in  time; ''  and  similarly  where  both  parties  treat  a  debt  as  then 
due,  the  tender  being  refused  upon  some  other  ground,  the  tenderee  cannot  defend 
on  the  ground  that  at  the  time  of  the  tender  the  debt  was  not  due.^° 

2.  Plack  —  a.  Where  Place  Is  Appointed.  If,  by  contract,  money  is  to  be 
paid  or  goods  are  to  be  delivered  at  a  certain  place,  a  tender  may,^'  and  must,*^  be 
made  at  that  place,  and  a  tender  at  the  place  is  sufficient,  although  the  one  to 
whom  it  is  to  be  made  be  absent  at  the  time."  A  tender  to  the  person  at  a  place 
other  than  the  one  designated  is  good  unless  objected  to  on  that  ground.^* 

b.  Where  no  Place  Is  Appointed.  At  common  law  with  respect  to  the  pay- 
ment of  money,  or  portable  articles,  where  the  time  but  no  place  of  payment  is 
specified,  and  no  place  of  payment  is  fixed  by  law,  the  rule  is  that  the  tenderer 
must  seek  the  tenderee  and  make  a  tender  to  him  wherever  he  can  be  found,*' 
and  a  tender  anywhere  to  the  person  of  the  tenderee  is  good,*'  the  tenderer  being 


Call  f.  Lothrop,  39  Me.  434;  Snyder  v. 
Quarton,  47  Mich.  211,  10  N.  W.  204;  Le 
More  V.  Miller,  64  Miss.  204,  1  So.  99; 
Kelly  V.  West,  36  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  304; 
Hull  V.  Peters,  7  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  331;  3rown 
V.  Ferguson,  2  Den.  (N.  Y.)  196;  Powers  v. 
Powers,   11  Vt.  262. 

35.  Stover  v.  Chasse,  9  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  45, 
29  N.  Y.  Suppl.  291. 

36.  Houston  v.  Sledge,  101  N.  C.  640,  8 
S.  E.  145,  2  L.  R.  A.  487;  Pell  v.  Chandos, 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.  1894)  27  S.  W.  48.  And 
see  Babcock  v.  Culver,  46  Vt.  715. 

A  tender  of  notes  in  pursuance  of  an 
agreement  to  accept  notes  made  after  the 
action  was  commenced  is  not  a  tender  after 
action  brought.  Emmons  v.  Myers,  7  How. 
(Miss.)  375.  See  Heirn  ;;.  Carron,  11  Sm. 
&  M.   (Miss.)   361,  49  Am.  Deo.  65. 

37  Farquhar  v.  lies,  39  La.  Ann.  874,  2 
So.  791. 

38.  See  Sweetland  v.  Tuthill,  54  111.  215; 
Wagner  v.  Heckenkamp,  84  111.  App.  323 ; 
Columbian  Bldg.  Assoc,  v.  Crump,  42  Md. 
192;  Le  Flore  v.  Miller,  64  Miss.  204,  1  So. 
99. 

39.  Hanna  v.  Eatekin,  43  111.  462;  Adams 
r.  Helm,  55  Mo.  468;  Buck  v.  Burk,  18  N.  Y. 
337;  Cythe  v.  La  Fontain,  51  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
186;  Gould  V.  Banks,  8  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  562, 
24  Am,  Dec.  90.  But  see  Friess  r.  Rider, 
24  N.  Y.  367,  82  Am.  Dec.  308. 

40.  Wyckoff  f.  Anthony,  90  N.  Y.  442 
[affirming   9    Daly   417]. 

41.  Logan  v.  Hartwell,  5  Kan.  649. 

43.  Price  v.  Cockran,  1  Bibb  (Ky.)  570; 
Adams  f.  Rutherford,  13  Oreg.  78,  8  Pac. 
896;  Roberts  v.  Beatty,  2  Penr.  &  W.  (Pa.) 
63,  21  Am.  Dec.  410;  Saunderson  v.  Bowes, 
14  East  500,   104  Eng.  Reprint  693. 

If  the  obligation  be  a  note,  a  tender  at  the 
place    designated   is   necessary,   although  the 

[III,  D,  1,  d] 


note  is  not  there.  McCauley  v.  Leavitt,  10 
Utah  91,  37  Pac.  164. 

If  the  obligation  provides  for  payment  at 
one  of  two  or  more  places,  the  debtor  must 
give  the  creditor  reasonable  notice  of  his 
election.  Aldrich  v.  Albee,  1  Me.  120,  10 
Am.  Dec.  45;  Barrett  v.  Eller,  51  N.  C.  550. 

Equity  will  not  supply  a  defect  in  a  tender 
made  in  a  wrong  place.  King  v.  Finch,  60 
Ind.  420. 

43.  Eaton,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hunt,  20  Ind. 
457;  Balme  r.  Wambaugh,  16  Minn.  116; 
Mahan  v.  Waters,  60  Mo.  167;  Judd  v.  En- 
sign, 6  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  258.  But  see  Smith 
V.  Smith,  25  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  405,  2  Hill 
351. 

But  calling  with  the  money  when  the 
creditor  is  absent  and  leaving  a  note  stating 
the  object  of  the  visit,  where  it  does  not  ap- 
pear that  the  note  was  received,  is.  no 
tender.  Rothwell  v.  Gettys,  II  Humphr. 
(Tenn.)    135. 

Where  a  debt  may  be  paid  in  specific 
articles,  readiness  at  the  time  and  place 
designated  is  a  good  tender,  although  the 
creditor  is  not  present.  Mingus  v.  Pritehet, 
14  N.  C.  78;  Barney  v.  Bliss,  1  D.  Chipm. 
(Vt.)    399,   12   Am.   Dee.    696. 

44.  Union  Mut.  L.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Union  Mills 
Plaster  Co.,  37  Fed.  286,  3  L.  R.  A.  90; 
Cropp  V.  Hambleton,  Cro.  Eliz.  48,  78  Eng. 
Reprint   310. 

45.  Berley  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82 
S.  C.  232,  64  S.  E.  397;  Startup  v.  Mac- 
donald,  12  L.  J.  Exch.  477,  6  M.  &  O.  593, 
7  Scott  N.  R.  269,  46  E.  C.  L.  593;  Cranley 
V.  Hillary,  2  M.  &  S.  120,  105  Eng.  Reprint 
327. 

46.  Bates  v.  Bates,  Walk.  (Miss.)  401,  12 
Am.  Dec.  572;  Hunter  t.  Le  Conte,  6  Cow. 
(N.  Y.)  728;  Slingerland  v.  Morse,  8  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)    474. 


TENDER 


[88  Cyc]    151 


required  to  exercise  due  diligence  and  good  faith  to  find  the  tenderee;  *'  and  the 
money  or  portable  articles  must  be  tendered  at  the  tenderee's  residence  if  it  can 
be  found;  *'  but  the  tenderer  is  not  bound  to  go  out  of  the  state  to  find  the  ten- 
deree." If  the  obligation  be  a  merchant's  payable  on  demand  in  goods,  or  a 
mechanic's  payable  in  his  wares,  the  law  implies  that  the  warehouse,  store,  or 
shop,  as  the  case  may  be,  is  the  place  agreed  upon  by  the  parties  for  tender.^" 
If  the  article  is  ponderous,  the  tenderer  before  the  day  of  tender  must  ascertain 
from  the  tenderee  where  he  will  receive  it;  "  and  if  the  creditor  cannot  be  found, 
or  if  he  refuses  to  appoint  any  place,  or  to  appoint  a  reasonable  place,  the  debtor 
may  himself  select  any  suitable  and  reasonable  place  and  make  a  delivery  there, 
with  notice  to  the  creditor,  if  he  can  be  found. ^^ 

e.  Deposit  In  Bank  or  Other   Depository.     A  deposit  in  a  bank  or  other 


47.  Lehman  i~.  Moore,  93  Ala.  186,  9  So. 
690;  Bancroft  v.  Sawin,  143  Mass.  144,  9 
N.  E.  539;  Leaird  v.  Smith,  44  N.  Y.  618. 
See  Southworth  v.  Smith,  7  Cush.  (Mass.) 
391;  Howard  v.  Holbrook,  9  Bosw.  (N.  Y.) 
237. 

48.  /Zimots.— Borah  v.  Curry,  12  111.  66. 
Indiana. —  Taylor  v.  Meek,  4  Blackf.  388. 
Kentuclcy. —  Galloway  v.  Smith,  Litt.  Sel. 

Cas.  132;  Wilmouth  v.  Fatten,  2  Bibb  280; 
Grant  v.  Groshon,  Hard.  85,  3  Am.  Dec.  725; 
Letcher  v.  Taylor,  Hard.  79;  Littell  v. 
Nichols,  Hard.  66;  Chambers  v.  Winn,  Ky. 
Dec.  166,  2  Am.  Dec.  713. 

Minnesota. —  Morey  v.  Enke,  5  Minn.  392. 

Missouri. —  Dameron  v.  Belt,  3  Mo.  213. 

'Sew  Hampshire. —  Miles  v.  Eoberts,  34 
N.  H.  245. 

Hew  York. —  Grussy  v.  Schneider,  55  How. 
Pr.  1S8;  Stoker  v.  Cogswell,  25  How.  Pr. 
267;  Smith  v.  Smith,  25  Wend.  405;  La 
Parge  v.  Rickert,  5  Wend.  187,  21  Am.  Dee. 
209;  Goodwin  v.  Holbrook,  4  Wend.  377. 

North  Carolina. —  Mingus  v.  Pritchet,  14 
N.  C.  78. 

OAio.— Wagers  v.  Dickey,  17  Ohio  439,  49 
Am.  Dec.  467. 

Pennsylvania. —  Barr  v.  Myers,  3  Watts  & 
S.  295;  Roberts  t.  Beaity,  2  Penr.  &  W.  63, 
21  Am.  Dec.   410. 

Rhode  Island.— Kail  v.  Whittier,  10  E.  I. 
530. 

Vermont. —  Morton  v.  Wells,   1  Tyler  381. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tender,"  §§11,  12. 

The  place  of  residence  at  the  time  the  con- 
tract was  made  is  the  place  where  tender 
should  be  made  unless  the  tenderer  has 
knowledge  of  a  change  thereof.  Borah  v. 
Curry,  12  111.  66;  Barker  v.  Jones,  8  N.  H. 
413.  See  Wiggin  v.  Wiggin,  43  N.  H.  561, 
80  Am.  Dec.  192;  Veazey  v.  Whitehouse,  10 
N.  H.  409;  Pickering  v.  Pickering,  6  N.  H. 
120. 

49.  Iowa. —  Young  v.  Daniels,  2  Iowa  126, 
63  Am.  Dec.  477.  But  see  Crawford  f.  Paine, 
19  Iowa  172. 

Maine. —  Howard  v.  Miner,  20  Me.  325. 

Massachusetts. —  Tasker  v.  Bartlett,  5 
Cush.  359. 

Minnesota. —  Gill  v.  Bradley,  21  Minn.  15. 

Mississippi.^- Jones  v.  Perkins,  29  Miss. 
139,  64  Am.  Dec.   136. 

New  York. —  Houbie  v.  Volkening,  49  How. 
Pr.    169. 

Pennsylvania. —  Santee    v.    Santee,    64    Pa. 


St.  473;  Allshouse  v.  Ramsay,  6  Whart.  331, 
37  Am.  Dec.  417. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tender,"  §   11. 

And  see  Beatty  v.  Brown,  101  Ala.  695,  14 
So.  368;  Gardner  v.  Black,  98  Ala.  638,  12 
So.  813;  Trimble  v.  Williamson,  49  Ala.  525. 

50.  Dunn  v.  Marston,  34  Me.  379;  Mason 
t\'Briggs,  16  Mass.  453;  Rice  v.  Churchill, 
2  Den.  (N.  Y.)  145;  Goodwin  v.  Holbrook,  4 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  377;  Hughes  v.  Prewitt,  5 
Tex.  264.  See  also  Dandridge  v.  Harris,  1 
Wash.   (Va.)    326,   1  Am.  Dec.  465. 

51.  Maine. —  Bean  v.  Simpson,  16  Me.  49, 
holding  that  if  the  debtor  does  not  inquire 
of  his  creditor  where  he  will  receive  the 
article,  a  readiness  at  his  own  dwelling- 
house  on  the  day  appointed  will  not  avail 
him  as  a  defense. 

Minnesota. —  Morey  v.  Enke,  5  Minn.  392. 

New  Hampshire. —  Wiggin  v.  Wiggin,  43 
N.  H.  561,  80  Am.  Dec.  192;  Miles  v. 
Roberts,  34  N.  H.  245;  Currier  v.  Currier, 
2  N.  H.  75,  9  Am.  Dec.  43. 

New  York. —  La  Farge  v.  Rickert,  5  Wend. 
187,  21  Am.  Dec.  209;  Sheldon  v.  Skinner, 
4  Wend.  525;  21  Am.  Dec.  161;  Barns  v. 
Graham,  4  Cow.  452,  15  Am.  Dec.  394. 

North  Carolina. —  England  v.  Wither- 
spoon,  2  N.  C.  361. 

Pennsylvania. —  Stewart  v.  Morrow,  1 
Grant  204;  Roberts  v.  Beatty,  2  Penr.  &  W. 
63,  21  Am.  Dec.  410. 

Texas. —  Deel  v.  Berry,  21  Tex.  463,  73 
Am.  Dec.  236. 

Wisconsin. —  Mallory  v.  Lyman,  3  Pinn. 
443,  4  Chandl.   143. 

England. —  Cheney's  Case,  3  Leon.  260,  74 
Eng.  Reprint  672. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tender,"  §§11,  12. 

Where  a  creditor  on  removing  from  the 
state  leaves  an  agent,  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
debtor  to  call  upon  the  agent  to  appoint  a 
place.     Santee  f.  Santee,  64  Pa.  St.  473. 

The  fact  that  the  creditor  is  domiciled 
abroad  does  not  absolve  the  debtor  from  the 
duty  of  making  an  inquiry  as  to  where  he 
will  receive  the  goods.  White  v.  Perley,  15 
Me.  470;  Bixby  v.  Whitney,  5  Me.  192. 

A  creditor  need  not  wait  for  a  request 
but  may  appoint  the  place  immediately  after 
the  execution  of  the  note  upon  which  tender 
is  to  be  made.  Aldrich  v.  Albee,  1  Me.  120, 
10  Am.  Dec.  45. 

53.  Howard  v.  Miner,  20  Me.  325;  Miles 
i\  Eoberts,  34  N.  H.  245. 

[Ill,  D,  2,  e] 


152     [38  Cyc] 


TENDER 


designated  place  of  payment  on  the  day  fixed  of  the  amount  due  is  a  good  tender 
if  the  obligation  is  payable  at  such  bank  or  depository/'  but  not  otherwise." 

E.  Necessity  That  Tender  Be  Unconditional — l.  in  General.  Where 
a  person  is  to  perform  an  act,  the  obligation  to  perform  which  is  independent  of 
any  precedent  or  concurrent  act  to  be  performed  by  the  other  party,  as  where 
money  is  to  be  paid  in  liquidation  of  a  debt,  or  the  object  is  to  discharge  the 
tenderer  of  the  obligation,  the  money  or  thing  to  be  delivered  must  be  tendered 
unconditionally,^^  and  a  tender  accompanied  with  some  condition,  performance 
of  which  is  impossible,^"  or  which  the  tenderer  has  no  right  to  make,"  as  where 
a  sum  is  offered  "as  a  settlement,"  ='  or  in  full  discharge,  or  as  payment  in  full,^» 


53.  Redman  v.  Murrel,  117  La.  516,  42  So. 
49;  Carley  v.  Vance,  17  Mass.  389;  Riley  v. 
Cheesman,  75  Hun  (N.  Y.)  387,  27  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  453;  Hill  f.  Place,  7  Rob.  389,  5  Abb. 
Pr.  N.  S.  18,  36  How.  Pr.  26;  Miller  f. 
New  Orleans  Bank,  5  Whart.  (Pa.)  503,  34 
Am.  Dec.  571;  Cheney  t.  Libby,  134  U.  S.  68, 
10  S.  Ct.  498,  33  L.  ed.  818;  Wallace  v. 
McConnell,  13  Pet.  (U.  S.)  136,  10  L.  ed. 
95;  Cheney  f.  Bilby,  74  Fed.  52,  20  C.  C.  A. 
291. 

54.  Cassville  Roller  Mill  Co.  i\  ^tna  Ins. 
Co.,  105  Mo.  App.  146,  79  S.  W.  720. 

A  deposit  with  a  justice  of  the  peace  for 
plaintiff  is  held  not  to  be  a  tender.  J.  H. 
North  Furniture,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Davis,  86  Mo. 
App.  296. 

55.  AXabama. —  Odum  v.  Rutledge,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  94  Ala.  488,  10  So.  222. 

Arkansas. —  Cole  v.  Moore,  34  Ark.  582. 

California. —  Perkins  v.  Maier,  etc..  Brew- 
ery, 134  Cal.  372,  66  Pac.  482;  Jones  v. 
Shuey,   (1895)   40  Pac.  17. 

Connecticut. —  Sanford  i'.  Bulkley,  30  Conn. 
344. 

Florida. —  Lindsay  v.  Matthews,  17  Fla. 
575. 

Georgia. —  Morris  v.  Continental  Ins.  Co., 
116  Ga.  53,  42  S.  B.  474;  Elder  v.  Johnson, 
115  Ga.  691,  42  S.  E.  51;  De  Graffenreid  v. 
Menard,  103  Ga.  651,  30  S.  E.  560. 

Illinois. —  Pulsifer  f.  Shepard,  36  111.  513; 
Connecticut  Mut.  L.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Stinson,  86 
111.  App.  668. 

Indiana. —  Storey  v.  Krewson,  55  Ind.  397, 
23  Am.  Rep.  668;  Rose  r.  Duncan,  49  Ind. 
269. 

Iowa.—  Breja  v.  Pryne,  94  Iowa  755,  64 
N.  W.  669;  Hopkins  v.  Gray,  51  Iowa  340,  1 
N.  W.  637. 

Kansas. —  Crane  t".  Renville  State  Bank, 
73  Kan.  287,  85  Pac.  285;  Shaw  v.  Sears,  3 
Kan.  242. 

Kentucky. —  Nantz  f.  Lober,  1  Duv.  304; 
Samuels  v.  Simmons,  60  S.  W.  937,  22  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  1586. 

Maine. —  Brown  v.  Gilmore,  8  Me.  107,  22 
Am.  Dec.  223. 

Massachusetts. —  Chapin  v.  Chapin,  (1894) 
36  N.  E.  746. 

Michigan. —  See  Parks  v.  Allen,  42  Mich. 
482,  4  N.  W.  227. 

Mississippi. —  Harmon  r.  Magee,  57  Miss. 
410. 

Missouri. —  Ruppel  t.  Missouri  Guarantee 
Sav.,  etc.,  Assoc,  158  Mo.  613,  59  S.  W.  1000; 
Henderson   r.   Cass   County,   107   Mo.   50,   18 

[III,  D,  2,  e] 


S.   W.   992;    Kitchen  f.    Clark,   1   Mo.   App. 
430. 

Nebraska. —  Schrandt  v.  Young,  62  Nebr. 
254,  86  N,  W.  1085;  Te  Poel  v.  Shutt,  57 
Nebr.  592,  78  N.  W.  288 ;  McEldon  v.  Patton, 
4  Nebr.   (Unoff.)   259,  93  N.  W.  938. 

New  Jersey. —  Bidwell  ;;.  Garrison,  (Ch. 
1897)   36  Atl..941. 

New  York. —  Cornell  r.  Hayden,  114  N.  Y. 
271,  21  N.  E.  417;  Persons  v.  Gardner,  122 
N.  Y.  App.  Div.  167,  106  N.  Y.  Suppl.  616; 
Cromwell  r.  Burr,  12  N.Y.St.  132;  Heelas  v. 
Slevin,  53  How.  Pr.  356;  Cashman  v.  Martin, 
50  How.  Pr.  337. 

North  Carolina. —  Rives  r.  Dudley,  56  N.  C. 
126,  67  Am.  Dec.  231. 

Ohio. —  Redfern  i:  Uluery,  12  Ohio  Cir.  Ct. 
87,  5  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  435. 

Pennsylvania. —  Wagenblast  v.  McKean,  2 
Grant  393;  Eckman  v.  Hildebrand,  1  Lane. 
L.  Rev.  21. 

South  Carolina. —  Smith  v.  Keels,  15  Rich. 
318. 

South  Dakota. —  Brace  v.  Doble,  3  S.  D. 
110,  52  N.  W.  586. 

Texas. —  Flake  r.  Nuse,  51  Tex.  98. 

Vermont. —  Holton  v.  Brown,  18  Vt.  224, 
46  Am.  Dec.  148. 

Wisconsin. —  Mann  -v.  Roberts,  126  Wis. 
142,  105  N.  W.  785 ;  Elderkin  v.  Fellows,  60 
Wis.  339,  19  N.  W.  101;  Hunter  f.  Warner, 
1  Wis.  141. 

United  States. —  Coghlan  v.  South  Carolina 
R.  Co.,  32  Fed.  316;  Boulton  v.  Moore,  14 
Fed.  922,  11  Biss.  500. 

England. —  Greenwood  r.  Sutcliffe.  [1892] 
1  Ch.  1,  61  L.  J.  Ch.  59,  65  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
797,  40  Wkly.  Rep.  241;  Jennings  v.  Major, 
8  C.  &  P.  61,  34  E.  C.  L.  610;  Mitchell  v. 
King,  6  C.  &  P.  237,  25  E.  C.  L.  412;  Peacock 
V.  Dickerson,  2  C.  &  P.  51,  12  E.  C.  L.  445; 
Brady  f.  Jones,  2  D.  &  R.  305,  16  E.  C.  L. 
87. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tender,"  §  33. 

56.  Brink  v.  Freoff,  40  Mich.  610;  Balme 
v.  Wambaugh,  16-  Minn.  116;  Malone  v. 
Wright,  90  Tex.  49,  36  S.  W.  420  [modifying 
(Civ.  App.  1896)   34  S.  W.  455]. 

57.  Odum  v.  Rutledge,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Ala. 
488,  10  So.  222;  Rives  r.  Dudley,  56  N.  0. 
126,  67  Am.  Dec.  231 ;  Flake  v.  Nuse,  51  Tex. 
98. 

.58.  Martin  v.  Bott,  17  Ind.  App.  444,  46 
N.  E.  151 ;  Mitchell  r.  King,  6  C.  &  P.  237,  25 
E.  C.  L.  412. 

59.  Illinois. —  Hess  v.  Peck,  111  111.  App. 
111. 


TENDER 


[88  Cye.J     153 


is  invalid.  But  the  tenderer  may  upon  making  a  tender  accompany  it  with  a 
declaration,  not  a  condition,  that  it  satisfied  the  debt,'"  if  the  expression  used 
amounts  to  no  more  than  an  assertion  of  what  the  tenderer  claims  to  be  due;  " 
and  a  tender  of  performance  may  be  accompanied  by  such  conditions  as  to  accept- 
ance as  are,  by  the  contract,  conditions  precedent  to  be  performed  by  the  party 
to  whom  the  tender  is  made,°^  and  which  therefore  the  tenderer  has  a  clear  right 
to  exact;  °'  and  where  mutual  and  concurrent  acts  are  to  be  performed,  the  word 
"tender,"  as  used  in  such  connection,  does  not  mean  the  same  kind  of  offer  as 
where  it  is  used  with  reference  to  an  offer  to  pay  an  ordinary  debt  due  in  money; 
but  it  only  means  readiness  and  willingness,  accompanied  with  ability  to  do  the 
thing  required,  and  notice  of  a  readiness  to  perform  providing  the  other  party 
will  concurrently  do  the  thing  which  he  is  requested  to  do,'*  and  it  has  been  held 
that  a  tender  may  be  made  conditional  upon  proof  being  produced  that  the  party 
holding  the  claim  has  a  right  to  receive  payment,  if  circumstances  exist  which 
reasonably  induce  a  belief  in  the  tenderer  that  the  tenderee  has  not  such  a  right.  °^ 
A  creditor,  accepting  money  tendered  conditionally,  assents  to  the  condition,  and 
cannot  accept  the  money  and  reject  the  conditions  on  which  it  was  tendered. °° 
2.  Amount  Offered  Must  Be  Admitted  to  Be  Due  ;  Payment  Under  Protest.  The 
sum  tendered  must  be  admitted  by  the  tenderer  to  be  due."    It  has  been  held, 


Maine. —  Brown  *.  Gilmore,  8  Me.  107,  22 
Am.  Dfec.  223. 

Minnesota. —  Moore  r.  Norman,  52  Minn. 
83,  53  N.  W.  809,  38  Am.  St.  Rep.  526,  18 
L.  R.  A.  359. 

Missouri. —  Henderson  v.  Cass  County,  107 
Mo.  50,  18  S.  W.  992. 

Nebraska. —  Tompkins  v.  Baltic,  11  Nebr. 
147,  7  N.  W.  747,  38  Am.  Rep.  361. 

Nevada. — -State  v.  Carson  City  Sav.  Bank, 
17  Nev.  146,  50  Pac.  703. 

New  Yorfc.— Noyes  v.  WyckofF,  114  N.  Y. 
204,  21  N.  E.  158;  Shiland  v.  Loeb,  58  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  565,  69  N.  Y.  Suppl.  11;  Brooklyn 
Bank  v.  De  Grauw,  23  Wend.  342,  35  Am. 
Dec.  569;  Wood  v.  Hitchcock,  20  Wend. 
47. 

Tennessee. —  Love  v.  Smith,  4  Yerg.  117. 

Vermont. —  Draper  v.  Hitt,  43  Vt.  439,  5 
Am.  Rep.  292;  Miller  v.  Holden,  18  Vt. 
337. 

Wisconsin. —  Elderkin  v.  Fellows,  60  Wis. 
339,  19  N.  W.  101. 

United  States. — Hepburn  v.  Auld,  1  Cranch 
321,  2  L.  ed.  122. 

England. —  Henwood  v.  Oliver,  1  Q.  B.  409, 

1  G.  &  D.  25,  10  L.  J.  Q.  B.  158,  41  E.  C.  L. 
601;  Hough  V.  May,  4  A.  &  E.  954,  2  Harr. 
&  W.  33,  5  L.  J.  K.  B.  186,  6  N.  &  M.  535, 
31  E.  C.  L.  415,  111  Eng.  Reprint  1042; 
Strong  V.  Harvey,  3  Bing.  304,  11  Moore  C.  P. 
72,  4  L.  J.  C.  P.  0.  S.  57,  11  E.  C.  L. 
153;  Evans  v.  Judkins,  4  Campb.  156; 
Sutton  V.  Hawkins,  8  C.  &  P.  259,  34  E.  C.  L. 
722;  Gordon  i\  Cox,  7  C.  &  P.  172,  32 
E.  C.  L.  557 ;  Peacock  v.  Dickerson,  2  C.  &  P. 
51,  12  E.  C.  L.  445;  Cheminant  v.  Tliornton, 

2  C.  &  P.  50,  12  E.  C.  L.  444;  Thomas  v. 
Evans,  10  East  101,  10  Rev.  Rep.  229,  103 
Eng.  Reprint  714;  Field  v.  Newport,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  3  H.  &  N.  409,  27  L.  J;  Exch.  396. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tender,"  §  33. 

Offering  a  sum  as  a  half  year's  rent  was 
held  to  be  conditional,  for  if  taken  it  would 
have  been  an  admission  of  the  amount  of 
rent  due.    Hastings  v.  Thorley,  8  C.  &  P.  573, 


34  E.  C.  L.  899.    But  see  Jones  v.  Bridgman, 
39  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  50O. 

60.  Foster  v.  Drew,  39  Vt.  51;  Preston  V. 
Grant,  34  Vt.  201;  Bowen  v.  Owen,  11  Q.  B. 
130,  11  Jur.  972,  17  L.  J.  Q.  B.  5,  63  E.  C.  L. 
130 ;  Robinson  v.  Ferreday,  8  C.  &  P.  752,  34 
E.  C.  L.  1001. 

61.  Foster  v.  Drew,  39  Vt.  51;  Preston  v. 
Grant,  34  Vt.  201. 

62.  Wendell  v.  New  Hampshire  Bank,  9 
N.  H.  404;  Wheelock  v.  Tanner,  39  N.  Y. 
481 ;  Engelbach  v.  Simpson,  12  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  188,  33  S.  W.  596  (where  a  vendor's 
lien  was  expressly  retained  in  the  convey- 
ance, and  a  tender  of  the  amount  secured  by 
the  lien,  upon  condition  that  the  vendor  fur- 
nish a  release  of  the  lien,  was  held  good)  ; 
Harding  v.  Giddings,  73  Fed.  335,  19  C.  C.  A. 
508.  See  Wadleigh  v.  Phelps,  149  Cal.  627, 
87  Pac.  93.      And  see  infra,  note  74. 

Where  an  order  by  a  creditor  on  a  bailee 
is  necessary  before  the  bailee  will  surrender 
the  property,  a  tender  of  the  debt  may  be 
made  conditional  upon  receiving  such  an 
order.  Johnson  «.  Cranage,  45  Mich.  14,  7 
N.  W.  188. 

63.  Odum  i:  Rutledge,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Ala. 
488,  10  So.  222. 

64.  Smith  v.  Lewis,  26  Conn.  110;  Taylor 
V.  Mathews,  53  Fla.  776,  44  So.  146;  Shouse 
v.  Doane,  39  Fla.  95,  21  So.  807;  Cook  v. 
Doggett,  2  Allen  (Mass.)  439;  Hampton  v. 
Speekenagle,  9  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  212,  11  Am. 
Dec.  704;  Washburn  v.  Dewey,  17  Vt.  92. 

65.  Kennedy  v.  Moore,  91  Iowa  39,  58 
N.  W.  1066. 

66.  Bahrenburg  v.  Conrad  Schopp  Fruit 
Co.,  128  Mo.  App.  526,  107  S.  W.  440 ;  Bull  v. 
Parker,  2  Dowl.  P.  C.  N.  S.  345,  7  Jur.  282, 
12  L.  J.  Q.  B.  93. 

67.  Kuhns  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Iowa 
528,  22  N.  W.  661;  Latham  v.  Hartford,  27 
Kan.  249;  Wood  v.  Hitchcock,  20  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  47;  Simmons  v.  Wilmott,  3  Esp.  91. 
See  Elderkin  v.  Fellows,  60  Wis.  339,  19 
N.  W.   101. 

[HI,  E,  2] 


154     [38  Cyc] 


TENDER 


however,  that  a  tender  under  protest,  reserving  the  right  to  dispute  the  amount 
due,  if  it  does  not  impose  any  conditions  on  the  tenderee,  is  good."* 

3.  Tender  Conditioned  Upon  the  Surrender  of  Evidence  of  Indebtedness  or 
Security.  An  offer  of  the  amount  due  on  a  negotiable  instrument  is  held  not  a 
good  tender  where  its  acceptance  is  made  conditional  on  the  surrender  of  the 
instrument, °°  although  there  is  authority  to  the  contrary,™  and  to  the  effect  that 
demanding  a  negotiable  instrument  but  not  making  its  surrender  a  condition 
to  the  tender  of  the  money  due  thereon  does  not  make  a  tender  conditional  and 
therefore  invalid.'^  It  is  held  that  where  there  is  no  dispute  as  to  the  amount 
due,  a  tender  may  be  made  by  an  accommodation  indorser  of  a  note,"  or  by  an 
accepter  of  a  bill,''  to  depend  upon  the  surrender  of  the  note  or  bills.  A  tender 
of  the  amount  of  a  mortgage  debt  may  be  coupled  with  a  condition  that  the 
mortgagee  surrender  the  mortgage  and  note  or  bond,  or  execute  a  release,  can- 
cellation, or  satisfaction  of  the  mortgage.'* 

4.  Demanding  Receipt  or  Discharge.  A  debtor  cannot  insist  upon  a  receipt 
in  full  in  respect  to  the  particular  claim  upon  which  the  tender  is  made,  or  a  receipt 
in  full  for  all  demands,  and  if  he  does  so  he  vitiates  the  tender;  '^  nor  can  the  offer 
be  made  conditional  upon  the  debtor  receiving  a  discharge.'®  A  tender  is  held  to 
be  vitiated  by  coupling  it  with  a  demand  for. a  receipt  for  the  sum  offered,"  unless, 


68.  Atchison,  etc.,  E.  Co.  r.  Roberts,  3 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  370,  22  S.  W.  183  (where 
freight  charges  were  tendered  under  protest); 
Sweny  v.  Smith,  L.  R.  7  Eq.  324,  38  L.  J. 
Ch.  446 ;  Scott  v.  Uxbridge,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  E. 
1  C.  P.  596,  12  Jur.  N.  S.  602,  35  L.  J.  C.  P. 
293,  13  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  596,  14  Wkly.  Rep. 
893;  Manning  f.  Lunn,  2  C.  &  K.  13,  61 
E.  C.  L.  13;  Peers  i\  AUen,  19  Grant  Ch. 
(U.  C.)  98.  See  Greenwood  v.  Sutclifife, 
[1892]  1  Ch.  1,  61  L.  J.  Ch.  59,  65  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  797,  40  Wkly.  Rep.  241  (where  the 
debtor,  on  making  a  tender  to  a  mortgagee  in 
possession,  reserved  the  right  to  review  their 
account)  ;  Thorpe  r.  Burgess,  8  Dowl.  P.  C. 
603  (where  the  debtor  in  offering  a  sum  said 
"  that  it  was  more  than  was  due,  but  that 
plaintiff  might  take  it  all,"  and  the  tender 
was  lield  good). 

69.  Storey  v.  Krewson,  55  Ind.  397,  23  Am. 
Rep.  668;  Pales  r.  Russell,  16  Pick.  (Mass.) 
315;  Baker  v.  Wheaton,  5  Mass.  509,  4  Am. 
Dec.  71 ;  Moore  r.  Korman,  52  Minn.  83,  53 
N.  W.  809,  38  Am.  St.  Rep.  526,  18  L.  R.  A. 
359;  Benson  Bank  v.  Hove,  45  Minn.  40,  47 
N.  W.  449;  Holton  f.  Brown,  18  Vt.  224,  46 
Am.  Dec.  148. 

70.  Strafford  f.  Welch,  59  N.  H.  46;  Hey- 
wood  K.  Hartshorn,  55  N.  H.  476;  Halpin  v. 
Phenix  Ins.  Co.,  118  N.  Y.  165,  23  N.  E.  482; 
Bailey  v.  Buchanan  County,  115  N.  Y.  297,  22 
jSr.  E.  155,  6  L.  p.  A.  562.  See  Wilder  v. 
Seelye,  8  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  408;  Hansard  f. 
Robinson,  7  B.  &  C.  90,  9  D.  &  R.  860,  5 
L.  J.  K.  B.  0.  S.  242,  14  E.  C.  L.  50,  108 
Eng.  Reprint  659. 

71.  Buffum  V.  Buffum,  11  N".  H.  451.  See 
Moore  t.  Vail,  13  N".  J.  Eq.  295. 

72.  Osterman  r.  Goldstein,  32  Misc.  (N.  Y.) 
676,  66  N.  Y.  Suppl.  506  [reversing  on  other 
grounds  31  Misc.  501,  64  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
555]. 

73.  Hansard  v.  Robinson,  7  B.  &  C.  90,  9 

D.  &  R.   860,  5  L.  J.  K.  B.  0.  S.  242,   14 

E.  C.  L.  50,  108  Eng.  Reprint  659. 

74.  See  Mortgages,  27  Cyc.  1407. 

[Ill,  E,  2] 


75.  Alabama. —  Commercial  F.  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Allen,  80  Ala.  571,  1  So.  202. 

Arkansas. —  Jacoway  v.  Hall,  67  Ark.  340, 
55  S.  W.  12.. 

Colorado. —  Butler  v.  Hinckley,  17  Colo. 
523,  30  Pac.  250. 

lovM. —  West  V.  Farmers'  Mut.  Ins;  Co., 
117  Iowa  147,  90  N.  W.  523,  holding  that 
Code  (1873),  §  3063,  providing  that  a  ten- 
derer may  demand  a  receipt  for  the  money 
tendered,  did  not  authorize  him  to  demand 
a  receipt  in  full. 

Massachusetts. —  Thayer  v.  Brackett,  12 
Mass.  450. 

New  York. —  Wood  i-.  Hitchcock,  20  Wend. 
47. 

South  Carolina. —  Siter  v.  Robinson,  2 
Bailey  274. 

United  States. —  Hepburn  v.  Auld,  1  Cranch 
321,  2  L.  ed.  122;  Perkins  l:  Beck,  19  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  10,984,  4  Cranch  C.  C.  68. 

England. —  Bowen  v.   Owen,   11   Q.  B.   130, 

11  Jur.  972,  17  L.  J.  Q.  B.  5,  63  E.  C.  L. 
130;  Finch  v.  Miller,  5  C.  B.  428,  57  E.  C.  L. 
428;    Griffith    r.    Hodges,    1    C.    &    P.    419, 

12  E.  C.  L.  246 ;  Foord  i;.  Noll,  2  Dowl.  P.  C. 
N.  S.  617,  12  L.  J.  C.  P.  2;  Glasscott  l-.  Day, 
5  Esp.  48,  8  Rev.  Rep.  828;  Higham  v.  Bad- 
dely,  Gow.  213;  Cole  !;.  Blake,  Peake  N.  P. 
179,  3  Rev.  Rep.  681. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "Tender,"  §  34. 

Receipt  required  by  law.—  Where  the  stat- 
ute requires  a  receipt  to  be  given,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  payment  of  taxes,  a  tender  of 
the  amount  due  will  relieve  the  taxpayer  from 
a  liability  for  penalties,  even  though  made 
conditional  upon  a  receipt  being  furnished. 
State  V.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  21  Nev.  247  30 
Pac.  686. 

76.  Richardson  v.  Boston  Chemical  Labora- 
tory, 9  Mete.  (Mass.)  42. 

77.  Sanford  v.  Bulklev,  30  Conn.  344; 
Roosevelt  v.  Bull's  Head  Bank,  45  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  579;  Holton  v.  Brown,  18  Vt.  224, 
46  Am.  Dec.  148.  See  Kitchen  v.  Clark  1 
Mo.  App.  430.     But  see  Brock  v.  Jones,   16 


TENDER 


[38  Cye.j     155 


as  is  the  case  in  a  few  jurisdictions,  a  statute  exists  which  allows  a  demand  for  a 

receipt.'* 

F.  By  Whom  Made  —  l.  In  General.  A  tender  to  be  valid  must  be  made 
by  the  debtor  or  someone  representing  him,"  and  a  tender  by  a  stranger  to  the 
contract  is  invalid/"  But  a  tender  may  be  made  by  an  attorney,  agent,  or  other 
person  authorized  to  make  it  on  behalf  of  the  debtor,*'  and  a  tender  may  be  made 
for  an  infant  by  his  guardian;  '^  and  where  the  right  to  make  a  tender  does  not 
cease  upon  the  death  of  a  person,  a  tender  may  be  made  by  his  personal  repre- 
sentatives, after  qualification,*^  but  not  before."*  A  third  person  who  has  for  a 
consideration  agreed  to  pay  the  debt  of  another  may  tender  the  amount  of  the 
debt;  ^  but  where  a  tender  is  made  by  a  third  person,  the  creditor  must  be  informed 
on  whose  behalf  it  is  made,  and  if  he  is  not  so  informed  the  tender  is  invalid." 

2.  Joint  Debtor.  A  tender  may  be  made  by  one  of  two  or  more  joint 
debtors,"  and  it  seems  that  a  joint  tender  of  a  gross  sum  by  debtors  bound 
severally  is  good.** 


Tex.  461  (criticizing  this  rule)  ;  Jones  *. 
Arthur,  8  Dowl.  P.  C.  442,  4  Jur.  859  {where 
a  check  was  inclosed  in  a  letter  with  the  re- 
quest that  a  receipt  be  sent  baclc,  and  the 
tender  was  held  good  for  th?  reason  that  the 
check  was  placed  beyond  the  control  of  the 
debtor). 

Waiver. —  By  failing  at  the  time  to  object 
to  a  tender  on  the  ground  that,  a  receipt  is 
demanded  and  assigning  another  reason  for 
refusing  is  a  waiver  of  the  objection  that  a 
receipt  was  required.  People  f.  Edwards,  56 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  377,  10  N.  Y.  Suppl.  335;  Rich- 
ardson !/•.  Jackson,  9  Dowl.  P.  C.  715,  10 
L.  J.  Exch.  303',  8  M.  &  W.  298;  Cole  v. 
Blake,  Peake  N.  P.  179,  3  Rev.  Eep.  681; 
Lockridge  v.  Lacey,  30  U.  C.  Q.  B.  494. 

A  tender,  coupled  with  a  demand  for  a  re- 
ceipt for  a  larger  sum  than  has  been  paid,  is 
not  a  sufficient  tender.  Rude  v.  Levy,  43 
Colo.  482,  96  Pac.  560,  127  Am.  St.  Rep.  123, 
24  L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  91. 

78.  West  V.  Farmers'  Mut.  Ins.  Co.,  117 
Iowa  147,  90  N.  W.  523,  holding,  however, 
that  such  a  statute  does  not  permit  a  demand 
for  a  receipt  in  full.  See  State  f.  Central 
Prc.  R.  Co.,  21  Nev.  247,  30  Pac.  686. 

79.  Mahler  v.  Newbaur,  32  Cal.  168,  91 
Am.  Dec.  571;  McDougald  v.  Dougherty,  11 
Ga.  570;  Rowell  v.  Jewett,  73  Me.  365  ;  Harris 
V.  Jex,  66  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  232;  Jones  f.  Moore, 
1  Edw.  (N.  Y.)  632.  But  see  Brown  v. 
Dysinger,  1  Rawle  (Pa.)  408,  holding  that 
a  tender  of  money  for  an  infant  by  his 
uncle  is  good,  although  not  appointed  guard- 
ian at  the  time  of  tender. 

Assignees  and  receivers  of  bankrupts  may 
make  a  tender  of  the  amount  due  upon  liens 
upon  the  bankrupt's  property  belonging  to 
the  estate.  Davies  v.  Dow,  80  Minn.  223,  83 
N.  W.  50.  But  an  assignment  in  insolvency 
does  not  deprive  the  debtor  of  his  right  of 
making  a  tender  of  the  amount  due  upon  a 
lien  upon  property  belonging  to  the  estate. 
Trimble  v.  Williamson,  49  Ala.  525,  holding 
also  that  a  judgment  creditor  may  redeem, 
providing  his  lien  attached  before  the  bank- 
ruptcy. See  Davies  v.  Dow,  80  Minn.  223, 
83  N.  W.  50. 

80.  Mahler  v.  Newbaur,  32  Cal.  168,  91 
Am.  Dec.  571;  McDougald  v.  Dougherty,  11 


Ga.  570;  Sinclair  u.  Learned,  51  Mich.  335, 
16  N.  W.  672;  Harris  v.  Jex,  66  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
232. 

Tenders  held  to  be  by  stranger  and  thus 
invalid  see  McDougald  «.  Dougherty,  11  Ga. 
570;  Watkins  v.  Ashwicke,  Cro.  Eliz.  132,  78 
Eng.  Reprint  389. 

An  inhabitant  of  a  town  or  other  political 
subdivision  whose  property  is  liable  to  seizure 
and  sale  to  satisfy  a  poor  rate  has  such  a 
direct  interest  as  will  entitle  him  to  make  a 
tender  of  the  amount  due  therefor.  Kinoaid 
V.  Brunswick  School  Dist.  No.  4,  11  Me.  138. 

81.  Arnold  t".  Empire  Mut.  Annuity,  etc., 
Ins.  Co.,  3  Ga.  App.  685,  60  S.  E.  470  (under 
express  statutory  provision)  ;  Wyllie  V.  Mat- 
thews, 60  Iowa  187,  14  N.  W.  232;  Keystone 
Lumber,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  f.  Jenkinson,  69  Mich. 
220,  37  N.  W.  198. 

A  tender  may  be  made  by  one  joint  agent 
for  all.  St.  Paul  Div.  No.  1  S.  0.  T.  v. 
Brown,   11  Minn.  356. 

Waiver. —  An  objection  that  the  agent  mak- 
ing the  tender  did  not  produce  his  authority 
is  waived  unless  proof  of  his  authority  is 
called  for  at  the  time  of  the  tender.  Lamp- 
ley  V.  Weed,  27  Ala.  621;  Couthway  v.  Berg- 
haus,  25  Ala.  393. 

'  82.  Watkins  v.  Ashwicke,  Cro.  Eliz.  132, 
78  Eng.  Reprint  389.  See  Brown  c  Dy- 
singer, 1  Rawle   (Pa.)    408. 

A  master  to  whom  a  minor  is  apprenticed 
cannot  make  a  tender  for  him,  a  parent  be- 
ing alive.  See  Com.  v.  Kendig,  1  Serg.  & 
R.   (Pa.)    366. 

83.  Sharp  i\  Garesche,  90  Mo.  App.  233; 
Rearich  v.  Swjnehart,  11  Pa.  St.  233,  51  Am. 
Dec.  540. 

84.  McDougald  f.  Dougherty,  11  Ga.  570, 
where  a  tender  made  by  the  widow  before 
she  was  appointed  an  administratrix  was 
held  bad. 

85.  Bell  V.  Mendenhall,  71  Minn.  331,  73 
N.  W.   1086. 

86.  Mahler  v.  Newbaur,  32  Cal.  168,  91 
Am.  Dec.  571. 

87.  Winter  v.  Atkinson,  28  La.  Ann.  650. 
But  see  Bender  v.  Bean,  52  Ark.  132,  12 
S.  W.   180,  241. 

88.  See  Hall  v.  Norwalk  F.  Ins.  Co.,  57 
Conn.   105,  17  Atl.  356. 

[Ill,  F,  2] 


156     [38  CycJ 


TENDER 


3.  Ratification  of  Unauthorized  Tender.  A  tender  by  a  person  acting  without 
authority  may  be  ratified. '° 

G.  To  Whom  Made  —  1.  In  General.  A  tender  must  in  general  be  made 
to  the  creditor/"  to  the  person  designated  in  the  contract/'  or  to  one  duly  author- 
ized to  receive  tender;  °^  and  where  an  obligation  has  been  assigned,  the  tender 
must  be  made  to  the  assignee,  provided  the  debtor  has  notice  of  the  assignment."' 
Money  due  the  estate  of  a  deceased  person  may  be  tendered  to  the  executor  or 
administrator  as  the  case  may  be.°^ 

2.  To  Agent,  Attorney,  or  Servant.  A  tender  to  an  agent  authorized  to 
receive  payment  has  the  same  effect  as  a  tender  to  the  principal,  °^  although  the 


89.  Kincaid  v.  Brunswick  School  Dist. 
No.  4,  11  Me.  188  (holding,  however,  that 
the  operation  of  this  rule  should  be  limited 
to  cases  in  which  the  tenderee  has  recognized 
the  tender  and  impliedly  accepted  it)  ; 
Forderer  v.  Schmidt,  154  Fed.  475,  84  C.  C.  A. 
426. 

90.  Hornby  c.  Cramer,  12  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 
490.  See  Grussy  r.  Schneider,  55  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)  188,  where  the  debtor  was  advised 
in  advance  that  the  one  to  whom  he  made 
the  tender  was  not  authorized  to  receive  the 
money. 

A  court  of  equity  will  not  supply  the  de- 
fect in  a  tender  where  it  is  made  to  the 
wrong  party.     King  v.  Finch,  60  Ind.  420. 

Tender  to  real,  not  ostensible,  creditor.— 
Where  plaintiflf  was  indebted  to  defendant, 
and  the  latter  conspired  with  a  third  person 
to  defraud  plaintiff  by  inducing  him  to  ex- 
ecute a  bill  of  sale  to  the  third  person  by 
representing  that  it  was  a  mortgage,  a 
tender  rnade  by  plaintiflf  in  order  to  obtain 
possession  of  the  property  conveyed  by  the 
bill  of  sale  was  properly  made  to  defendant, 
who  was  the  beneficiary  of  the  fraud.  Harris 
V.  Staples,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.  1905)  89  S.  W. 
801. 

The  fact  that  the  creditor  was  deaf,  and 
could  only  be  made  to  understand  by  signs 
and  movements  of  the  lips,  did  not  dis- 
qualify him  from  receiving  a  tender.  Eober- 
son  V.  Clevenger,  111  Mo.  App.  622,  86  S.  W. 
512. 

91.  Te  Poel  v.  Shutt,  57  Nebr.  592,  78 
N.  W.  288. 

93.  Boyee  v.  Prichett,  6  Dana  (Ky.)  231. 
And  see  Mi/ro,  III,  G,  2. 

A  tender  of  anything  due  a  carporation 
should  be  made  to  the  ofiicer  authorized  to 
receive  it,  .although  there  seems  to  be  no 
uniform  rule  or  custom  relative  to  what 
officer  of  a  corporation  has  such  authority. 
A  tender  to  an  officer  of  a  corporation  act- 
ing in  place  of  its  treasurer  has  been  held  to 
be    a    sufficient    tender    to    the    corporation 

(Louisville  E.  Co.  v.  Williams,  109  S.  W. 
874,  33  ^y.  L.  Eep.  168),  and  a  tender  to 
a  president,  of  the  amount  due  upon  an 
assessment  upon  the  stock,  was  held  good, 
where  made  at  the  office  of  the  company  and 
no  objection  was  made  that  the  president 
had  no  authority  to  represent  the  company 

(Mitchell  r.  Vermont  Copper  Min.  Co.,  67 
N.  Y.  280  [affirming  40  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 
406] ) ,  and  a  tender  to  a  local  secretary  and 
treasurer  of  a  building  and  loan  association 

[III,  F,  3] 


was  held  good  (Smith  v.  Old  Dominion 
Bldg.,  etc.,  Assoc,  119  N.  C.  257,  26  S.  E. 
40),  and  where  the  superintendent  and  gen- 
eral manager  of  a  company  was  the  only 
agent  with  whom  a  third  person  contracted, 
the  superintendent  was  the  one  to  whom  a 
tender  could  be  made  by  the  third  person 
(Birmingham  Paint,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Crampton, 
(Ala.    1905)    39   So.    1020). 

93.  Flanigan  v.  Seelye,  53  Minn.  23,  55 
N.  W.  115.  But  see  Smith  v.  Kelley,  27  Me. 
237,  46  Am.  Dec.  595. 

A  tender  to  the  payee  of  a  note  after  he 
has  transferred  it  is  bad.  Goss  v.  Emerson, 
23  N.  H.  38. 

If  an  assignee  refuses  a  tender  and  it  is 
witiin  the  power  of  the  assignor  to  perform, 
a  tender  should  then  be  made  to  him. 
Dustan  v.  McAndrew,  10  Bosw.  (N.  Y.)  135 
[affirmed  in  44  N.  Y.  72]. 

94.  Parker  v.  Lincoln,  12  Mass.  16;  Eat- 
cliflf  V.  Davies,  Cro.  Jac.  244,  79  Eng.  Ee- 
print  210. 

A  tender  to  a  person  before  he  qualifies 
as  executor  is  not  good.  Todd  v.  Parker,  1 
N.  ,L   L.   45. 

95.  Dunlop  V.  Funk,  3  Harr.  &  M.  (Md.) 
318;  Goodland  v.  Blewith,  1  Campb.  477,  10 
Eev.  Eep.  731 ;  Moflfat  v.  Parsons,  1  Marsh. 
55,  5  Taunt.  307,  15  Eev.  Eep.  506,  1  E. 
C.  L.  164;  Harper  v.  Peterson,  14  U.  C. 
C.  P.  538. 

The  debtor  can  elect  whether  to  tender  to 
the  agent  or  to  the  creditor.  Hoyt  v.  Hall, 
3  Bosw.  (N.  Y.)  42.  See  Hoyt  v.  Byrnes,  11 
Me.  475. 

The  burden  of  proving  the  agency,  if  de- 
nied, is  upon  the  debtor.  See  Garnett  v. 
Meyers,  65  Nebr.  280,  91  N.  W.  400,  94 
N.  W.  803;  Smith  v.  Kidd,  68  N.  Y.  130,  23 
Am.  Eep.   157. 

If  the  agent  be  instructed  not  to  receive 
the  money  until  certain  conditions  are  com- 
plied with,  which  conditions  if  annexed  to 
the  acceptance  by  the  principal  would  not 
justify  his  refusing,  a  tender  to  the  agent 
is  good.  Crawford  v.  Osman,  94  Mich.  533, 
54  N.  W.  284. 

Tender  to  bank. —  If  the  evidence  of  an 
obligation  is  lodged  with  a  bank  to  be  sur- 
rendered on  receiving  payment,  a  tender  may 
be  made  to  the  bank.  Mahan  v.  Waters,  60 
Mo.  167;  Adams  v.  Hackensack  Imp.  Com- 
mission, 44  N.  J.  L.  638,  43  Am.  Eep.  406; 
Cheney  v.  Libby,  134  U.  S.  68,  10  S.  Ct. 
498,  33  L.  ed.  818.  If  not  lodged  with  the 
bank,  any  sum  received  by  the  bank  to  be 


TENDER 


[38  Cyc]    167 


debtor  believed  the  agent  to  be  the  real  party  in  interest.  °°  Similarly  a  tender 
may  be  made  to  an  attorney  with  whom  the  demand  has  been  lodged  for  collec- 
tion/' but  not  to  an  attorney  whose  authority  is  so  restricted  as  not  to  include 
a  power  to  accept  tender,'*  although  a  tender  to  an  attorney  who  is  in  fact 
adequately  authorized  is  sufficient  even  though  he  disclaims  authority.'"  But 
the  tender  as  in  other  cases  must  be  of  the  full  amount  of  the  debt.'  The  general 
rule  is  that  a  tender  to  a  clerk  in  a  store,  of  the  amount  due  for  goods  purchased 
at  such  store,  is  equivalent  to  a  tender  to  the  proprietor;  ^  but  a  tender  to  a 
mere  servant  without  actual  or  apparent  authority  to  receive  the  money  is 
insufficient,'  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  tenderee  is  at  the  time  absent 
from  the  state.* 

3.  To  Joint  Creditor.  A  tender  of  the  joint  debt  to  one  of  several  joint 
creditors  is  a  tender  to  all,^  and  if  a  person  who  is  indebted  to  creditors 
severally  in  different  sums  tenders  a  gross  sum  to  all  of  them  assembled  together, 
and  the  tender  is  objected  to  upon  the  ground  of  insufficiency  of  amount,  other 


applied  on  the  instrument  is  received  as  the 
agent  of  the  payer.  Ward  v.  Smith,  7 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  447,  19  L.  ed.  207.  Where  a 
bank  inadvertently  gave  the  maker  of  a 
note  payable  at  the  bank  notice  of  the  time 
of  its  maturity,  the  note  being  there  as  a 
special  deposit  and  not  for  collection,  a 
tender  to  the  bank  was  held  insufficient. 
King  V.  Finch,  60  Ind.  420. 

A  tender  to  the  creditor's  family  has  been 
held  good  under  circumstances  indicating 
that  the  creditor  intended  to  render  tender 
impossible.  Judd  v.  Ensign,  6  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
258. 

Authority  of  agent  to  collect  or  receive 
payment  see  Pbincipal  and  Agent,  31  Cyc. 
1368. 

96.  Conrad  v.  Grand  Grove  U.  A.  O.  D., 
64  Wis.  258,  25  N.  W.  24. 

97.  Louisiana. —  Billiot  v.  Robinson,  13 
La.  Ann.  529;  Mudd  v.  Stille,  6  La.  17. 

Massachusetts. —  Mclniffe  v.  Wheelock,  1 
Gray  600. 

Minnesota. —  Salter  v.  Shove,  60  Minn. 
483,  62  N.  W.  1126. 

New  Hampshire. —  Thurston  v.  Blaisdell, 
8  N.  H.  367. 

New  York. —  Osterman  v.  Goldstein,  31 
Misc.  501,  64  N.  Y.  Suppl.  555  [reversed  on 
other  grounds  in  32  Misc.  676,  66  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  506] ;  Jackson  v.  Crafts,  18  Johns. 
110. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tender,"  §  10.  See 
also  Attoenet  and  Client,  4  Cyc.  947  text 
and  note  92. 

Tender  to  attorney's  clerk. —  Where  an  at- 
torney demands  that  payment  be  made  at 
his  office,  a  tender  to  his  clerk  in  the  office 
in  his  absence  is  good.  Wilmot  v.  Smith, 
3  C.  &  P.  453,  M.  &  M.  238,  31  Rev.  Rep. 
732,  14  E.  C.  L.  659;  Kinton  v.  Braith- 
waite,  5  Dowl.  P.  C.  101,  2  Gale  48,  5  L.  J. 
Exch.  165,  1  M.  &  W.  310,  Tyrw.  &  G.  945. 
But  where  the  attorney  wrote  that  the 
money  "  must  be  paid  to  me,"  a  tender  to  a 
clerk  who  said  he  could  not  take  the  money 
as  his  employer  was  out  was  held  bad. 
Watson  V.  Hetherington,  1  C.  &  K.  36,  47 
E.  C.  L.  36.  And  it  is  held  that  where  a 
managing  clerk  disclaims  authority  to  re- 
ceive payment,  a  tender  to  the  clerk  is  in- 


sufficient. Finch  V.  Boning,  4  C.  P.  D.  143, 
40  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  484,  27  Wkly.  Rep.  872; 
Bingham  v.  Allport,  2  L.  J.  K.  B.  86,  1 
N.  &  M.  398. 

If  an  attorney  is  at  home,  sick,  the  debtor 
should  either  make  a  tender  to  the  person  in 
charge  of  the  office  or  call  at  the  abode  of 
the  attorney  or  upon  the  creditor.  Francis 
V.  Deming,  59  Conn.  108,  21  Atl.  1006. 

Costs  imposed  as  a  condition  of  opening 
up  a  default  may  be  tendered  to  the  at- 
torney. Wolff  V:  Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  89 
Cal.  332,  26  Pac.  825. 

98.  Tuthill  V.  Morris,  81  N.  Y.  94. 

99.  Mclniffe  v.  Wheelock,  1  Gray  (Mass.) 
600.  But  see  Wilmot  v.  Smith,  3  C.  &  P. 
453,  M.  &  M.  238,  31  Rev.  Rep.  732,  14  E. 
C.  L.  659. 

1.  Chipman  v.  Bates,  5  Vt.  143. 

2.  Hoyt  V.  Byrnes,  11  Me.  475;  Moffat  v. 
Parsons,  5  Taunt.  307,  15  Rev.  Rep.  506,  1 
E.  C.  L.  164. 

Where  a  creditor  demanded  that  payment 
be  made  at  his  office  it  was  held  that  such 
demand  amounted  to  authority  for  the  clerk 
there  to  receive  payment.  Kinton  v.  Braith- 
waite,  5  Dowl.  P.  C.  101,  2  Gale  48,  5  L.  J. 
Exch.  165,  1  M.  &  W.  310,  Tyrw.  &  G.  945. 

Although  a  clerk  was  instructed  not  to  re- 
ceive the  money  because  the  claim  had  been 
placed  with  an  attorney  for  collection,  the 
tender  was  held  good.  Moffat  v.  Parsons,  1 
Marsh.  55,  5  Taunt.  307,  15  Rev.  Rep.  506, 
1  E.  C.  L.  164. 

3.  Thurber  v.  Jewett,  3  Mich.  295 ;  Jewett 
V.  Earle,  53  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  349.  But  see 
Anonymous,  1  Esp.  349. 

4.  McGuire  v.  Bradley,   118   111.  App.  59. 

5.  Flanigan   v.    Seelye,    53    Minn.    23,    55 
N.  W.  115;  Carman  v.  Pultz,  21  N.  Y.  547 
Wyckoff  V.  Anthony,  9  Daly    (N.  Y.)    417 
Dawson  v.  Ewing,  16  Serg.  &  R.   (Pa.)   371 
Prescott  V.  Everts,  4  Wis.  314. 

A  tender  to  one  cotenant  is  a  tender  to 
all  (Loddiges  v.  Lister,  1  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
548),  and  where  tenants  in  common  ap- 
peared and  contested  certain  proceedings 
without  objecting  that  it  should  have  been 
against  them  severally,  a  tender  in  such 
proceedings  to  one  was  held  good  (Dyckman 
V.  New  York,  5  N.  Y.  434). 

[Ill,  G,  3] 


158     [38  CycJ 


TENDER 


objections  to  the  tender  are  waived,  and  if  the  amount  be  in  fact  suflB.cient  the 
tender  is  good.° 

H.  Tender  of  Specific  Articles.  Where  the  debt  is  payable  in  specific 
articles,  the  debtor  must,  at  the  time  of  payment,  have  the  articles  at  the  place 
of  payment,'  set  apart  and  separated  for  identification;  *  and  it  is  not  enough 
that  the  tenderer  has  a  large  quantity  at  the  place  of  tender,"  whether  the  tenderee 
is  there  to  receive  them  or  not,'"  and  the  tenderee  must  be  given  a  reasonable 
time  and  opportunity  to  ascertain  his  rights  and  examine  the  articles  if  he  requests 
it."  If  the  debt  is  payable  ia  either  of  two  kinds  of  property,  the  tender  must 
be  wholly  of  one  kind  or  of  the  other,"  if  payable  in  several  kinds,  the  tender  must 
be  made  of  all  the  kinds  and  not  of  some  only."  Property  required  by  law  to 
lae  surveyed,  inspected,  or  sealed  must  be  surveyed,  inspected,  or  sealed  before 
it  is  tendered." 

IV.  KEEPING  Tender  good. 

A.  Necessity.  Where  the  debt  remains  after  the  tender,  a  tender  of  money 
to  be  available  to  the  party  tendering  must  be  kept  good,  otherwise  it  is  aban- 
doned,^^ and  a  tender  of  money  must  be  kept  good  if  it  is  to  be  made  the  basis  for 


6.  Black  v.  Smith,  Peake  N.  P.  88,  3  Rev. 
Rep.  661. 

7.  Connecticut. —  Smith  v.  Loomis,  7 
Conn.    110. 

District  of  Columbia. —  Hughes  v.  Esch- 
baek,  7  D.  C.  66. 

Iowa. —  SpaflFord  v.  Stutsman,  9  Iowa  128; 
Williams  v.  Triplett,  3  Iowa  518;  Games  v. 
Manning,  2  Greene  251. 

£:entMcA;i/.— Mitchell  r.  Gregory,  1  Bibb 
449,  4  Am.  Dee.  655. 

Maine. —  Bates  v.  Churchill,  32  Me.  31; 
Veazy  v.  Harmony,  7  Me.  91. 

Missouri. —  McJilton  v.  Smizer,  18  Mo.  111. 

'New  Hampshire. —  Bailey  v.  Simonds,  6 
N.  H.   159,  25  Am.  Dec.  454. 

New  York. —  Wheelock  v.  Tanner,  39  N.  Y. 
481. 

North  Carolina. —  Patton  v.  Hunt,  64  N.  C. 
163. 

Texas. —  Cherry  v.  Newby,  11  Tex.  457. 

Vermont. —  Barney  v.  Bliss,  1  D.  Chipm. 
399,  12  Am.  Dec.  696. 

Custom  and  usage  may  be  proven  to  de- 
termine whether  a  proper  tender  of  chattels 
has  been  made,  in  the  absence  of  definite 
provision  in  the  contract.  Clark  v.  Baker, 
11  Mete.  (Mass.)  186,  45  Am.  Dec.  199. 
Thus  if  it  is  the  custom  to  call  at  the  shop 
of  a  mechanic  for  articles  manufactured  by 
him,  it  is  a  sufficient  tender  if  the  article  is 
ready  on  the  day  and  set  out  in  his  shop. 
Downer  v.  Sinclair,  15  Vt.  495. 

A  tender  of  a  certificate  of  inspection  for 
lumber  lying  on  the  bank  of  a  river  was  held 
insufficient,  the  certificate  being  evidence 
only  that  the  lumber  had  been  inspected,  not 
that  the  lumber  was  at  the  place  at  the  time 
of  the  tender.  Thompson  v.  Gaylard,  3 
N.  C.  326. 

8.  Smith  V.  Loomis,  7  Conn.  110;  Games 
V.  Manning,  2  Greene  (Iowa)  251;  Bates  v. 
Churchill,  32  Me.  31;  Veazy  v.  Harmony,  7 
Me.  91;  Cherry  v.  Newby,  11  Tex.  457.  But 
see  Armstrong  v.  Tait,  8  Ala.  635,  42  Am. 
Dec.  656;  Hughes  c.  Prewitt,  5  Tex.  264. 

The  property  may  be  pointed  out  or 
designated  by  setting  it  aside  and  tagging 

[III,  G,"  3] 


it,  so  that  the  payee  may  pursue  and  re- 
cover the  property  itself.  Hughes  v.  Esch- 
back,  7  D.  C.  66;  Bates  v.  Bates,  Walk. 
(Miss.)  401,  12  Am.  Dec.  572;  McConnel  v. 
Hall,  Brayt.   (Vt.)  223. 

9.  Wyman  v.  Winslow,  11  Me.  398,  26 
Am.  Dec.  542;  Coffin  v.  Reynolds,  21  Minn. 
456;  Barns  v.  Graham,  4  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  452, 
15  Am.  Dec.  394;  Newton  v.  Galbraith,  5 
Johns.   (X.  Y.)    119. 

Where  a  note  was  for  the  payment  of  ten 
cows  and  calves,  driving  eleven  cows  and 
calves  into  a  lot  without  making  any  sepa- 
ration of  the  ten  was  held  not  a  tender,  al- 
though the  debtor  stated  that  he  was  ready 
to  pay  tlie  note.  Bates  r.  Bates,  Walk. 
(Miss.)    401,  12  Am.  Dec.  572. 

Where  the  thing  to  be  paid  was  hay,  it 
was  held  that  it  need  not  be  weighed  and 
specially  turned  out  if  a,  sufficient  quantity 
was  at  the  place  set  apart  and  appropriated 
for  the  payment  of  the  note.  Leballister  v. 
Nash,  24  Me.  316. 

10.  Barney  v.  Bliss,  1  D.  Chipm.  (Vt.) 
399,  12  Am.  Dec.  696. 

11.  Isherwood  v.  Whitmore,  2  Dowl.  P.  0. 
N.  S.  548,  7  Jur.  535,  12  L.  J.  Exeh.  318,  11 
M.  &  W.  347. 

12.  Townsend  v.  Wells,  3  Day  (Conn.) 
327. 

13.  Thompson  v.  Gaylard,   3  N.  C.  326. 

14.  Jones  v.  Knowles,  30  Me.  402;  Elkins 
V.  Parkhurst,  17  Vt.  105. 

15.  Alabama. —  Odum  r.  Rutledge,  etc., 
E.  Co.,  94  Ala.  488,  10  So.  222;  McCalley 
V.  Otey,  90  Ala.  302,  8  So.  157. 

Arkansas. —  Kelly  v.  Keith,  85  Ark.  30, 
106  S.  W.  1173;  iCole  «;.  Moore,  34  Ark. 
582. 

Colorado. —  Burlock  c.  Cross,  16  Colo.  162, 
26  Pac.  142. 

Florida. —  Matthews    v.    Lindsay,    20    Fla. 

Georgia. —  Gray  v.  Angler,  62  Ga.  596. 

Illinois. —  Rankin  c.  Rankin,  216  111.  132, 
74  N  E.  763;  Aulger  v.  Clay,  109  111.  487; 
Pulsifer  t.  Shepard,  36  111.  513;  Stow  V. 
Russell,   36   HI.   18;    Webster  v.  Pierce,   35 


TENDER 


[38  Cye.J     159 


affirmative  relief  by  the  tenderer  who,  either  as  plaintiff  or  defendant,  invokes 
the  equitable  powers  of  the  court.'"  But  if  a  lien  is  discharged  by  a  tender,  the 
tenderer  desiring  the  benefit  of  it  may  rely  upon  the  tender  without  showing 
that  it  was  kept  good,"  and  the  same  rule  applies  where  a  contract  or  lease  has 
been  terminated  by  the  tender.''  A  tender  of  specific  articles,  however,  unlike 
a  tender  of  money,  need  not  be  kept  good."    Sureties  are  discharged  as  a  general 


111.  158;  Chicago  Mar.  Bank  v.  Eushmore, 
28  III.  463;  Sloan  v.  Petrie,  16  111.  262; 
Mason  v.  Stevens,  91  111.  App.  623;  Mc- 
Daniel  t\  Upton,  45  111.  App.  151;  Dunbar 
v.  De  Boer,  44  111.  App.  615. 

Indiana. —  Wilson  v.  McVey,  83  Ind.   lOS., 

Iowa. —  Rainwater  v.  Hummell,  79  Iowa 
571,  44  N.  W.  814;  Long  v.  Howard,  35 
Iowa  148;  Jones  v.  Mullinix,  25  Iowa  198; 
Mohn  V.  Stoner,  14  Iowa  115;  Barker  v. 
Brink,  5  Iowa  481. 

Kansas. —  Saum  v.  La  Shell,  45  Kan.'  205, 
25  Pac.  561. 

Kentucky. —  McCulloch  v.  Scott,  13  B. 
Mon.  172,  56  Am.  Dec.  561 ;  Lloyd  v.  O'Eear, 
59  S.  W.  483,  22  Ky.  L.  Eep.  1000. 

Maine. —  McPheters  v.  Kimball,  99  Me. 
505,  59  Atl.  853. 

Maryland. —  Maulsby  v.  Page,  105  Md.  24, 
65  Atl.  818. 

Michigan.' — Browning  v.  Grouse,  40  Mich. 
339. 

Minnesota. —  Balme  v.  Wambaugh,  16 
Minn.  116. 

Mississippi. —  Tishimingo  Sav.  Inst.  v. 
Buchanan,  60  Miss.  496. 

New  York. —  Nelson  v.  Loder,  132  N.  Y.  ' 
288,  30  N.  E.  369  [affirming  55  Hun  173,  7 
N.  y.  Suppl.  849];  Tuthill  v.  Morris,  81 
N.  Y.  94;  Dodge  v.  Fearey,  19  Hun  277; 
Warbury  v.  Wilcox,  2  Hilt.  121;  Craig  «. 
Eobinson,  33  Misc.  779,  67  N.  Y.  Suppl.  969; 
Osterman  v.  Goldstein,  32  -Misc.  676,  66 
N.  Y.  Suppl.  506  [reversing  31  Misc.  501, 
64  N.  Y.  Suppl.  555] ;  Starke  v.  Myers,  24 
Misc.  577,  53  N.  Y.  Suppl.  650;  Rumpf  v. 
Schiff,   109  N.  Y.  ISuppl.   51. 

North  Carolina. —  Tate  v.  Smith,  70  N.  C. 
685. 

Oregon. — ^Anderson  v.  Griffith,  51  Oreg. 
116,  93  Pac.  934. 

Pennsylvania.  —  Sharpless  v.  Dobbins,  1 
Del.  Co.  25. 

Virginia. —  Lohman  v.  Crouch,  19  Gratt. 
331;  Shumaker  v.  Nichols,  6  Gratt.  592; 
Call  V.  Scott,  4  Call  402. 

Washington. —  Andrews  v.  Uncle  Joe  Dia- 
mond Broker,  44  Wash.  668,  87  Pac.  947. 

West  yirjfimo.— Shank  v.  GrofF,  45  W.  Va. 
543,  32  S.  E.  248. 

Wisconsin. —  Musgat  v.  Pumpelly,  46  Wis. 
660,  1  N.  W.  410. 

United  States. —  Bissell  v.  Heyward,  96 
U.  S.  580,  24  L.  ed.  678;  Beardsley  v.  Beards- 
ley,  86  Fed.  16,  29  C.  C.  A.  538;  Illinois  v. 
Illinois  Cent.  E.  Co.,  33  Fed.  730;  Coghlan 
V.  South  Carolina  E.  Co.,  32  Fed.  316. 

EnglaMd.—  Gjlea  v.  Hall,  2  P.  Wms.  378, 
24  Bng.  Reprint  774. 

See  45  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Tender,"  §  55. 

But  see  Ashley  v.  Eocky  Mountain  Tel. 
Co.,  25  Mont.  286,  64  Pac.  765. 


A  tender  may  be  abandoned  by  subse- 
quently failing  to  insist  upon  it.  Fry  v. 
Russell,  35  Mich.  229;  Davis  v.  Nelson,  73 
Vt.  328,  50  Atl.  1094;  Barker  v.  Parken- 
horn,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  993,  2  Wash.  142. 

Where  a  composition  agreement  is  set  up 
as  a  defense  to  a  common-law  action  on  the 
original  obligation,  and  tender  thereunder 
is  shown,  the  tender  need  not  be  kept  good, 
where  refused.  Eosenzweig  v.  Kalichman, 
56  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  345,  106  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
860. 

16.  Arkansas. —  Schearfif  v.  Dodge,  33  Ark. 
340. 

Georgia. —  McGehee  v.  Jones,  10  Ga.  127. 

Illinois. —  O'Eiley  v.  Suver,  70  111.  85; 
Blain  v.  Foster,  33  111.  App.  297. 

Iowa. —  Long  V.  Howard,  35  Iowa  148. 

Minnesota. — Murray  v.  Nickerson,  90  Minn. 
197,  95  N.  W.  898;  Dunn  v.  Hunt,  63  Minn. 
484,  65  N.  W.  948. 

Missouri. —  Euppel  v.  Missouri  Guarantee, 
etc.,  Assoc,  158  Mo.  613,  59  S.  W.  lOOO. 

New  York. —  Nelson  v.  Loder,  132  N.  Y. 
288,  30  N.  E.  369 ;  Werner  v.  Tuch,  127  N.  Y. 
217,  27  N.  E.  845,  24  Am.  St.  Eep.  443. 

Pennsylvania. —  Summerson  v.  Hicks,  134 
Pa.  St.  566,  19  Atl.  808. 

Vermont. —  Perry  v.  Ward,  20  Vt.  92. 

Wisconsin. —  Smith  v.  Phillips,  47  Wis.  202, 
2  N.  W.  285. 

United  States. —  Illinois  v.  Illinois  Cent. 
R.  Co.,  33  Fed.  730. 

See    45    Cent.    Dig.    tit.    "Tender,"    §    55. 

But  see  Cannon  v.  Handley,  72  Cal.  133,  13 
Pac.  315. 

17.  Illinois. —  McPherson  v.  James,  69  111. 
App.  337. 

Michigan. —  Stewart  -r.  Brown,  48  Mich. 
383,  12  N.  W.  499;  Daugherty  v.  Byles,  41 
Mich.  61;  Potts  V.  Plaisted,  30  Mich.  149; 
Eslow  V.  Mitchell,  26  Mich.  500;  Moynahan 
V.  Moore,  9  Mich.  9,  77  Am.  Dec.  468. 

Minnesota. —  Norton  v.  Baxter,  41  Minn. 
146,  42  N.  W.  865,  16  Am.  St.  Eep.  679,  4 
L.  E.  A.  306. 

New  York. —  Kortright  v.  Cady,  21  N.  Y. 
343,  78  Am.  Deo.  145. 

Oregon. —  Christenson  v.  Nelson,  38  Oreg. 
473,  63  Pac.  648. 

Washington. —  Thomas  v.  Seattle  Brewing, 
etc.,  Co.,  48  Wash.  560,  94  Pac.  116,  125  Am. 
St.  Rep.  945,  15  L.  E.  A.  N.  S.  1164;  Andrews 
V.  Hoeslich,  47  Wash.  220,  91  Pac.  772,  125 
Am.  St.  Eep.  896,  18  L.  E.  A.  N.  S.  1265. 

18.  Parker  *.  Gortatowsky,  129  Ga.  623', 
69  S.  E.  286. 

19.  Garrard  v.  Zachariah,  1  Stew.  (Ala.) 
272;  Mitchell  v.  Merrill,  2  Blackf.  (Ind.) 
87,  18  Am.  Dec.  12S;  Mitchell  v.  Gregory,  1 
Bibb  (Ky.)  449,  4  Am.  Dec.  655;  McPherson 
i:  Wiswell,  16  Nebr.  625,  21  N.  W.  391. 

[IV.  A] 


160     [38  Cye.J 


TENDER 


rule  by  a  valid  rejected  tender  made  to  the  creditor,  although  it  is  not  kept 
good.^" 

B.  Manner — l.  In  general.  To  keep  a  tender  good,  the  party  making 
it  must  keep  the  money  so  that  he  can  produce  it  when  demanded, ^^  and  a  tender 
of  money  must  be  kept  good  in  money .^^  The  identical  money  tendered  need  not 
be  kept,  it  being  sufficient  if  similar  current  funds  are  kept  on  hand  in  readiness,^' 
and  before  an  action  is  commenced  or  a  defense  interposed  based  on  a  tender,  the 
tender  may  be  kept  good  by  the  tenderer  keeping  the  money  in  his  possession." 
But  the  tenderer  must  not  use  the  money,  and  if  by  so  doing  his  readiness  to  pay  at 
all  times  is  impaired,  using  the  money  amotmts  to  a  withdrawal  of  the  tender,^^ 
and  some  cases  seem  to  go  even  further  and  to  hold  that  subsequent  use  of  the 
funds  tendered  vitiates  the  tender  irrespective  of  the  question  of  the  impairment 


But  the  tenderer  cannot  a1)andon  the  prop- 
erty (Gayle  v.  Suydam,  24  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
271)  ;  he  is  bound  to  care  for  it,  and  may 
retain  possession  for  the  tenderee  or  store 
the  goods  for  him  (Dustan  i.  McAndrew,  44 
N.  Y.  72;  Slieldon  v.  Skinner,  4  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
525,  21  Am.  Dec.  161). 

The  tenderee  must  resort  to  the  specific 
articles  tendered,  and  the  person  in  whose 
possession  they  are  holds  them  as  bailee  and 
at  the  tenderee's  risk.  Fordyce  v.  Hathorn, 
57  Mo.  120;  Slingerland  v.  Morse,  8  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)  474. 

If  the  thing  tendered  be  a  note,  bond,  mort- 
gage, deed,  or  other  instrument,  defendant 
must  plead  that  he  has  always  been  and  still 
is  ready  witli  the  money  or  thing  tendered, 
and  it  must  be  in  court  on  the  trial.  Fannin 
V.  Thomason,  50  Ga.  614;  Sanders  v.  Peck, 
131  111.  407,  25  N.  E.  508;  Gayle  v.  Suydam, 
24  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  271;  Brooklyn  Bank  v. 
De  Grauw,  23